Quirino M. Libunao vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. Nos. 214336-37, February 15, 2022
Facts:
1. At the heart of the present controversy is the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) allocated to accused Constantino H. Navarro, Jr., then Surigao Del Norte First District representative.
2. By virtue of Assignment Order, the COA conducted a special review of the utilization of Navarro's CDF for the years 1997 to 1998.
3. The audit team discovered that Pl3,832,569.00 of said CDF was used to purchase, on different occasions, assorted medicines, shabu testing kits, nebulizing machines, sporting materials, rice paddy plows (araro), blackboard erasers, chalks, and notebooks from various suppliers.
4. But instead of conducting a public bidding, the purchase was done through direct contracting, in violation of Section 3 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 3024 resulting in an overpricing of the items purchased amounting to P2,863,689.36 or equivalent to 13.6% to 506% of the prevailing market prices.
5. In Criminal Case No. 27803, the prosecution established that Navarro requisitioned for the purchase of 45 boxes of assorted medicines in the amount of P2,000,000.00 from San Marino. Libunao approved the transactions, certified that the expense was necessary, lawful, and incurred under his direct supervision; he then signed checks payable to San Marino.
6. In Criminal Case No. 27805, it was established that Navarro requisitioned for 1,200 sets of araro tools in the amount of P900,000.00 from Revelstone. Again, Libunao approved the transactions, certified that the expense was necessary, lawful, and incurred under his direct supervision, and he signed the checks payable to Revelstone.
Issue:
Whether or not accused violated Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
Yes.
The elements of Section 3( e ), to wit: (1) that the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions, or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officer; (2) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) 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 element: petitioner was a public officer acting in his official capacity as Regional Director of the DILG-Caraga at the time of the commission of the crime.
Second element: proof of any of the three modes, namely:. manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 is enough to convict.
Third element: it requires that the act constituting the offense must consist of either (1) causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or (2) giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge by the accused of his official, administrative or judicial functions.
The second and third elements discussed above are positively proven by the records of the case. Petitioner gave unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to San Marino and Revelstone through gross inexcusable negligence in approving the subject transactions despite the absence of public bidding.
In the present case, not only were the subject purchases of medicines and araro tools done through direct contracting; petitioner utterly failed to present any justification sufficient to forego the conduct of a competitive public bidding as expressly mandated by E.O. No. 302.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment