NAVA vs. PALATTAO

G.R. No. 160211
August 28, 2006


FACTS:

An amount of P603,265.00 was released to the DECS for distribution to the newly nationalized high schools located within the region. Through the initiative of accused Venancio Nava, a meeting was called among his seven (7) schools division superintendents whom he persuaded to use the money or allotment for the purchase of Science Laboratory Tools and Devices (SLTD). In other words, instead of referring the allotment to the one hundred fifty-five (155) heads of the nationalized high schools for the improvement of their facilities, accused Nava succeeded in persuading his seven (7) schools division superintendents to use the allotment for the purchase of science education facilities.

In the purchase of the school materials, the law provides that the same shall be done through a public bidding. But in the instant case, evidence shows that accused Nava persuaded his seven (7) schools division superintendents to ignore the circular.

Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty of violating Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, or entering on behalf of the government any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the latter, whether or not the public officer profited or would profit thereby.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is guilty of of violating Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. (YES)

HELD:

YES, petitioner is guilty of of violating Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 

For a charge under Section 3(g) to prosper, the following elements must be present:

1) that the accused is a public officer;
2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and
3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.

Petitioner is a public officer, who approved the transactions on behalf of the government, which thereby suffered a substantial loss. The discrepancy between the prices of the SLTDs purchased by the DECS and the samples purchased by the COA audit team clearly established such undue injury. Indeed, the discrepancy was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. 

The law on public bidding is not an empty formality. It aims to secure the lowest possible price and obtain the best bargain for the government. It is based on the principle that under ordinary circumstances, fair competition in the market tends to lower prices and eliminate favouritism.

We must emphasize however, that the lack of a public bidding and the violation of an administrative order do not by themselves satisfy the third element of Republic Act No. 3019. Lack of public bidding alone does not result in a manifest and gross disadvantage. Indeed, 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. Nevertheless, the law requires that the disadvantage must be manifest and gross. 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.

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.