Sison vs People

1/20/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME614

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001525f4fe2f28cf03976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14

SO ORDERED.

Corona (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Nachura andMendoza, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside.

Note.A temporary restraining order issues only if thematter is of such extreme urgency that grave injustice andirreparable injury will arise unless it is issuedimmediately. (Brizuela vs. Dingle, 553 SCRA 662 [2008])

o0o

G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398403.March 9, 2010.*

ROLANDO E. SISON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, respondent.

Bids and Bidding As a rule, acquisitions of supplies by localgovernment units shall be through competitive bidding Instanceswhen no bidding is required Section 367 of Republic Act No. 7160provides for limitations on personal canvass.RA 7160 explicitlyprovides that, as a rule, acquisitions of supplies by localgovernment units shall be through competitive bidding. By wayof exception, no bidding is required in the following instances: (1)personal canvass of responsible merchants (2) emergencypurchase (3) negotiated purchase (4) direct purchase frommanufacturers or exclusive distributors and (5) purchase fromother government entities. Since personal canvass (the methodavailed of by petitioner) is an exception to the rule requiringpublic bidding, Section 367 of RA 7160 provides for limitations onthe resort to this mode of procurement.

Same Where the head of the office or department requestingthe requisition sits in a dual capacity, the participation of aSanggunian

_______________



*THIRD DIVISION.

671

VOL. 614, March 9, 2010 671

Sison vs. People

member (elected from among the members of the Sanggunian)is necessary Where any of the regular members is therequisitioning party, a special member from the Sanggunian isrequired.To reiterate, RA 7160 requires that where the head ofthe office or department requesting the requisition sits in a dualcapacity, the participation of a Sanggunian member (elected fromamong the members of the Sanggunian) is necessary. Petitionerclearly disregarded this requirement because, in all the purchasesmade, he signed in a dual capacityas chairman and member(representing the head of office for whose use the supplies werebeing procured). That is strictly prohibited. None of the regularmembers of the Committee on Awards may sit in a dual capacity.Where any of the regular members is the requisitioning party, aspecial member from the Sanggunian is required. The prohibitionis meant to check or prevent conflict of interest as well as toprotect the use of the procurement process and the public fundsfor irregular or unlawful purchases.

Criminal Law AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices ActElements under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019.To be foundguilty under said provision, the following elements must concur:(1) the offender is a public officer (2) the act was done in thedischarge of the public officers official, administrative or judicialfunctions (3) the act was done through manifest partiality,evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence and (4) thepublic officer caused any undue injury to any party, including theGovernment, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage orpreference.

Same Same Three way of committing the third element ofSection 3 of Republic Act No. 3019.The third element of Section3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed in three ways, i.e., throughmanifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusablenegligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with theprohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is enough toconvict.

Same Same Words and Phrases Meaning of Partiality,

tbmaramagHighlight

tbmaramagHighlight

tbmaramagHighlight

tbmaramagHighlight



Bad Faith and Gross Negligence.Explaining whatpartiality, bad faith and gross negligence mean, we held:Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites a dispositionto see and report matters as they are wished for rather than asthey are. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment ornegligence it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moralobliquity and conscious doing of a wrong

672

672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sison vs. People

a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will itpartakes of the nature of fraud. Gross negligence has been sodefined as negligence characterized by the want of even slightcare, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a dutyto act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with aconscious indifference to consequences in so far as other personsmay be affected. It is the omission of that care which eveninattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their ownproperty.

Same Same Under the fourth element, although neithermode constitutes a distinct offense, an accused may be chargedunder either mode or both.The fourth element is likewisepresent. While it is true that the prosecution was not able toprove any undue injury to the government as a result of thepurchases, it should be noted that there are two ways by whichSection 3(e) of RA 3019 may be violatedthe first, by causingundue injury to any party, including the government, or thesecond, by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit,advantage or preference. Although neither mode constitutes adistinct offense, an accused may be charged under either mode orboth. The use of the disjunctive or connotes that the two modesneed not be present at the same time. In other words, thepresence of one would suffice for conviction.

Same Same In order to be found guilty under the secondmode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor orbenefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative orjudicial functions.In order to be found guilty under the secondmode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor orbenefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative orjudicial functions. Petitioner did just that. The fact that he

tbmaramagHighlight

tbmaramagHighlight

tbmaramagHighlight

tbmaramagHighlight



repeatedly failed to follow the requirements of RA 7160 onpersonal canvass proves that unwarranted benefit, advantage orpreference was given to the winning suppliers. These supplierswere awarded the procurement contract without the benefit of afair system in determining the best possible price for thegovernment. The private suppliers, which were all personallychosen by respondent, were able to profit from the transactionswithout showing proof that their prices were the most beneficialto the government. For that, petitioner must now face theconsequences of his acts.

673

VOL. 614, March 9, 2010 673Sison vs. People

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of theCourt of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Augusto S. Jimenez for petitioner. The Solicitor General for respondent.

CORONA,J.:The requirements of the law on government

procurements should never be taken for granted becausegrave consequences await those who violate them.

Petitioner Rolando E. Sison was the municipal mayor ofCalintaan, Occidental Mindoro, a fourthclassmunicipality,1 from July 1, 1992 to June2 30, 1995, whileRigoberto de Jesus was the municipal treasurer. On July18, 1994, state auditor Elsa E. Pajayon conducted a postaudit investigation which revealed that during petitionersincumbency, no public bidding was conducted for thepurchase of a Toyota Land Cruiser, 119 bags of Fortunecement, an electric generator set, certain constructionmaterials, two Desert Dueler tires, and a computer and itsaccessories. Pajayon also found out that there wereirregularities in the documents supporting the acquisitions.

Thus, on June 4, 1998, petitioner and de Jesus wereindicted before the Sandiganbayan in seven separateInformations3 for seven counts of violation of Section 3(e) ofRepublic

_______________



1 http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Calintaan,_Occidental_Mindoro.(accessed on May 25, 2009).

2Erroneously stated in the records as July.3In Criminal Case No. 24666, petitioner and coaccused de Jesus were

charged as follows:That in or about February to March 1993, or sometime prior or

subsequent thereto, in Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro, Philippinesand within the jurisdiction of this Honorable

674

674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDSison vs. People

Act (RA) 3019.4On June 24, 1999, petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the

Informations. Accused de Jesus has remained at large.Trial on the merits ensued. Pajayon was the lone

witness for the prosecution. She narrated the Statesversion of the facts as above stated. The prosecutionthereafter rested its case and formally offered its exhibits.

When it was the turn of the defense to present evidence,petitioner was called to the witness stand where headmitted that indeed, no public bidding was conductedinsofar as the purchases he was being accused of wereconcerned. When asked how the purchases were made, heanswered that they were done through personal canvass.When prodded why personal canvass was the method used,he retorted that no public bidding could be conductedbecause all the dealers of the items were based in Manila.It was therefore useless to

_______________

Court, the abovenamed accused, both public officers, then beingthe Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of Calintaan, OccidentalMindoro, conspiring and confederating with one another,committing the offense in relation to their office, taking advantageof their positions and acting with manifest partiality, evident badfaith and/or inexcusable negligence did then and there wilfully,unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the governmentand give unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to aprivate supplier by effecting the purchase and payment of aToyota Land Cruiser without public bidding and properdocumentation and without complying with the legal



procedure/steps for effecting purchase of government supplies andequipment.

CONTRARY TO LAW.Petitioner and coaccused de Jesus were also charged in six other

informations similar to the above except as to the item purchasedand date of commission of the offense.

4Otherwise known as The AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act.

675


invite bidders since nobody would bid anyway. The defensethereafter rested its case and formally offered its exhibits.

On November 14, 2005, the Sandiganbayan foundpetitioner guilty as charged.5 As such, he was meted ineach Information an imprisonment term ranging from sixyears and one month as minimum to ten years asmaximum and perpetual disqualification from holdingpublic office. The Sandiganbayan also ordered that an aliaswarrant of arrest be issued against accused de Jesus.

Petitioner appealed6 to this Court, praying for anacquittal because his guilt was allegedly not proven beyondreasonable doubt.

We dismiss the appeal.NonCompliance with the Requirements of Personal Canvass

RA 71607 explicitly provides that, as a rule, acquisitionsof supplies by local government units shall be throughcompetitive bidding.8 By way of exception, no bidding isrequired in the following instances:

_______________

5Decision penned by Justice Efren N. de la Cruz and concurred in byJustices Godofredo L. Legaspi (retired) and Norberto Y. Geraldez. Rollo,pp. 2860.

6Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Id., at pp. 1027.7Otherwise known as The Local Government Code of 1991.8 Section 356, RA 7160. The term supplies as used by the law

includes everything, except real property which may be needed in thetransaction of public business or in the pursuit of any undertaking, projector activity, whether in the nature of equipment, furniture, stationarymaterials for construction or personal property of any sort, including non



personal or contractual services such as the repair and maintenance ofequipment and furniture, as well as trucking, hauling, janitorial, security,and related services. (Section 357(c), Id.) Thus, there is no question thatthe purchases in the instant case are covered by RA 7160.

676


(1)personal canvass of responsible merchants(2)emergency purchase(3)negotiated purchase(4)direct purchase from manufacturers or exclusive

distributors and(5)purchase from other government entities.9Since personal canvass (the method availed of by

petitioner) is an exception to the rule requiring publicbidding, Section 367 of RA 7160 provides for limitations onthe resort to this mode of procurement:

Sec.367.Procurement through Personal Canvass.Uponapproval by the Committee on Awards, procurement of suppliesmay be affected after personal canvass of at least three (3)responsible suppliers in the locality by a committee of three (3)composed of the local general services officer or the municipal orbarangay treasurer, as the case may be, the local accountant, andthe head of office or department for whose use the supplies arebeing procured. The award shall be decided by the Committee onAwards.

Purchases under this Section shall not exceed the amountsspecified hereunder for all items in any one (1) month for eachlocal government unit:

xxxMunicipalities:First Class One hundred fifty thousand pe

sos (P150,000.00)Third Class Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00)Fourth Class and BelowTwenty thousand pesos

(P20,000.00) (emphasis supplied)

In relation thereto, Section 364 of RA 7160 mandates:

_______________



9Section 366, Id.

677


Section364.The Committee on Awards.There shall be inevery province, city or municipality a Committee on Awards todecide the winning bids and questions of awards on procurementand disposal of property.

The Committee on Awards shall be composed of the local chiefexecutive as chairman, the local treasurer, the local accountant,the local budget officer, the local general services officer, and thehead of office or department for whose use the supplies are beingprocured, as members. In case a head of office or departmentwould sit in a dual capacity a member of the sanggunianelected from among its members shall sit as a member. TheCommittee on Awards at the barangay level shall be thesangguniang barangay. No national official shall sit as member ofthe Committee on Awards. (emphasis supplied)

Note that the law repeatedly uses the word shall toemphasize the mandatory nature of its provisions.

This Court is not a trier of facts. The resolution offactual issues is a function exercised by lower courts, whosefindings on these matters are received with respect and arein fact binding on the Court except only where it is shownthat the case falls under the accepted exceptions.10Petitioner failed to establish that his case falls under thoseexceptions. Hence, we have no other option but to upholdthe Sandiganbayans factual findings.

Insofar as the purchase of the Toyota Land Cruiser11 isconcerned, the Sandiganbayan found that the personalcanvass was effected solely by petitioner, without theparticipation of the municipal accountant and petitionerscoaccused de Jesus, the municipal treasurer. Worse, therewas no showing that that the award was decided by theCommittee on Awards. Only an abstract of canvasssupported the award, signed by petitioner and de Jesus,without the required signatures of the municipalaccountant and budget officer.

_______________



10FNCB Finance v. Estavillo, G.R. No. 93394, 20 December 1990, 192SCRA 514, 517.

11Subject of Criminal Case No. 24666.

678


To reiterate, RA 7160 requires that where the head ofthe office or department requesting the requisition sits in adual capacity, the participation of a Sanggunian member(elected from among the members of the Sanggunian) isnecessary. Petitioner clearly disregarded this requirementbecause, in all the purchases made, he signed in a dualcapacityas chairman and member (representing the headof office for whose use the supplies were being procured).That is strictly prohibited. None of the regular members ofthe Committee on Awards may sit in a dual capacity.Where any of the regular members is the requisitioningparty, a special member from the Sanggunian is required.The prohibition is meant to check or prevent conflict ofinterest as well as to protect the use of the procurementprocess and the public funds for irregular or unlawfulpurchases.

The same flaws attended the procurement of 119 bags ofFortune cement,12 electric power generator set,13 variousconstruction materials,14 two Desert Dueler tires15 and acomputer and its accessories.16

With the kind of items purchased by petitioner, he alsoclearly spent more than P20,000or beyond the thresholdamount per month allowed by Section 367 of RA 7160 asfar as purchases through personal canvass by fourthclassmunicipalities (like Calintaan) are concerned.Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019

Section 3(e) of RA 3019 provides:

Section3.Corrupt practices of public officersIn addition toacts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existinglaw,

_______________

12Subject of Criminal Case No. 24667.13Subject of Criminal Case No. 24668.



14Subject of Criminal Case No. 24669 & 246670.15Subject of Criminal Case No. 246671.16Subject of Criminal Case No. 246672.

679


the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any publicofficer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

xxx(e)Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any unwarrantedbenefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official,administrative or judicial functions through manifestimpartiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.xxx. (emphasis supplied)

To be found guilty under said provision, the followingelements must concur:

(1)the offender is a public officer(2)the act was done in the discharge of the public officers official,

administrative or judicial functions(3)the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith,

or gross inexcusable negligence and(4)the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including

the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage orpreference.17 (emphasis supplied)

It is undisputed that the first two elements are presentin the case at bar. The only question left is whether thethird and fourth elements are likewise present. We holdthat they are.

The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may becommitted in three ways, i.e., through manifest partiality,evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Proof ofany of these three in connection with the prohibited actsmentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is enough to convict.18

Explaining what partiality, bad faith and grossnegligence mean, we held:

_______________

17 Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 136082, 12 May 2000, 332

tbmaramagHighlight



SCRA 126.18Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 50691, 5 December 1994, 238

SCRA 655.

680


Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites adisposition to see and report matters as they are wished for ratherthan as they are. Bad faith does not simply connote badjudgment or negligence it imputes a dishonest purpose or somemoral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong a breach of swornduty through some motive or intent or ill will it partakes of thenature of fraud. Gross negligence has been so defined asnegligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting oromitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, notinadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a consciousindifference to consequences in so far as other persons may beaffected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive andthoughtless men never fail to take on their own property.19(citations omitted)

In the instant case, petitioner was grossly negligent inall the purchases that were made under his watch.Petitioners admission that the canvass sheets sent out byde Jesus to the suppliers already contained his signaturesbecause he presigned these forms20 only proved his utterdisregard of the consequences of his actions. Petitioner alsoadmitted that he knew the provisions of RA 7160 onpersonal canvass but he did not follow the law because hewas merely following the practice of his predecessors.21This was an admission of a mindless disregard for the lawin a tradition of illegality. This is totally unacceptable,considering that as municipal mayor, petitioner ought toimplement the law to the letter. As local chief executive, heshould have been the first to follow the law and see to itthat it was followed by his constituency. Sadly, however, hewas the first to break it.

Petitioner should have complied with the requirementslaid down by RA 7160 on personal canvass, no matter howstrict they may have been. Dura lex sed lex. The law isdifficult but it is the law. These requirements are notempty words but were specifically crafted to ensure

tbmaramagHighlight



transparency in the acqui

_______________

19Id., at pp. 687688.20TSN, 21 June 2004, p. 32.21Id., at p. 34.

681


sition of government supplies, especially since no publicbidding is involved in personal canvass. Truly, therequirement that the canvass and awarding of supplies bemade by a collegial body assures the general public thatdespotic, irregular or unlawful transactions do not occur. Italso guarantees that no personal preference is given to anysupplier and that the government is given the best possibleprice for its procurements.

The fourth element is likewise present. While it is truethat the prosecution was not able to prove any undueinjury to the government as a result of the purchases, itshould be noted that there are two ways by which Section3(e) of RA 3019 may be violatedthe first, by causingundue injury to any party, including the government, orthe second, by giving any private party any unwarrantedbenefit, advantage or preference. Although neither modeconstitutes a distinct offense,22 an accused may be chargedunder either mode or both.23 The use of the disjunctive orconnotes that the two modes need not be present at thesame time. In other words, the presence of one wouldsuffice for conviction.24

Aside from the allegation of undue injury to thegovernment, petitioner was also charged with having givenunwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to privatesuppliers.25 Under the second mode, damage is notrequired.

The word unwarranted means lacking adequate orofficial support unjustified unauthorized26 or withoutjustification or

_______________

tbmaramagHighlight



22Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, 2 December 1993, 228SCRA 214.

23 Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 16231417, 5 October 2004,441 SCRA 377.

24Quibal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109991, 22 May 1995, 244 SCRA224.

25See note 1.26Webster, Third International Dictionary (Unabridged), p. 2514.

682


adequate reason.27 Advantage means a more favorable orimproved position or condition benefit, profit or gain of anykind benefit from some course of action.28 Preferencesignifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability choiceor estimation above another.29

In order to be found guilty under the second mode, itsuffices that the accused has given unjustified favor orbenefit to another, in the exercise of his official,administrative or judicial functions. Petitioner did justthat. The fact that he repeatedly failed to follow therequirements of RA 7160 on personal canvass proves thatunwarranted benefit, advantage or preference was given tothe winning suppliers. These suppliers were awarded theprocurement contract without the benefit of a fair systemin determining the best possible price for the government.The private suppliers, which were all personally chosen byrespondent, were able to profit from the transactionswithout showing proof that their prices were the mostbeneficial to the government. For that, petitioner must nowface the consequences of his acts.Propriety of the Penalty

Any person guilty of violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 ispunishable with imprisonment for not less than six yearsand one month nor more than fifteen years and perpetualdisqualification from public office.30 Thus, the penaltyimposed by the Sandiganbayan which is an imprisonmentterm ranging from six years and one month as minimum toten years as maximum and perpetual disqualification fromholding public office for each count of the offense, is inaccord with law.

tbmaramagHighlight



_______________

27Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition), Vol. 43A 1978,Cumulative Annual Pocket Part, p. 19.

28Webster, Third International Dictionary (Unabridged), p. 30.29Id., at p. 1787.30See Section 9, RA 3019.

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

Sison vs People

Documents

Transcript of Sison vs People