CAUNAN vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 181999; 183001
September 2, 2009


FACTS:

It was alleged that petitioners purchased a total of 142,612 pieces of "walis ting-ting” at either P25 per piece or P15 per piece without complying with the requirements on Procurement and Public Bidding, and the transactions were clearly grossly overpriced as the actual cost per piece of the "walis ting-ting" was only P11.00 as found by the Commission on Audit (COA) Special Audit Team.

The Sandiganbayan rendered judgment finding petitioners Caunan and Marquez guilty of violating Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners are guilty of violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 (NO)

HELD:

NO, the petitioners are not guilty of violating Section 3(g) of RA 3019 because of the absence of gross and manifest disadvantage to the government.

The fact of overpricing is embedded in the third criminal element of Section 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019. Given the factual milieu of this case, the subject contracts would be grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government if characterized by an overpriced procurement. However, the gross and manifest disadvantage to the government was not sufficiently shown because the conclusion of overpricing was erroneous since it was not also adequately proven.

The lack of public bidding alone does not automatically equate to a manifest and gross disadvantage to the government. As we had occasioned to declare in Nava v. Sandiganbayan, the absence of a public bidding may mean that the government was not able to secure the lowest bargain in its favor and may open the door to graft and corruption. However, this does not satisfy the third element of the offense charged, because the law requires that the disadvantage must be manifest and gross. After all, penal laws are strictly construed against the government.

*The above case digest is only a guide. I highly recommend that you read the FULL TEXT.