G.R. No. 192591 - Alvarez vs. People

Petitioner Efren L. Alvarez was the Mayor of the then Municipality of Muñoz (now Science City of Muñoz), Nueva Ecija.
The case concerns the awarding and implementation of the Wag-Wag Shopping Mall project under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme, contracted to Australian-Professional, Inc. (API).
The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Muñoz adopted Resolution No. 136, S-95, inviting API to participate in the proposed project.
On February 9, 1996, an invitation for proposals was published in the tabloid Pinoy, offering 30 days for submission.
API was the lone proposer; the Pre-qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) recommended approval on April 12, 1996.
The SB authorized Mayor Alvarez on April 15, 1996, to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with API.
The MOA was executed on September 12, 1996.
Groundbreaking occurred on February 14, 1997.

On August 10, 2006, Alvarez was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, alleging gross inexcusable negligence, evident bad faith, and manifest partiality.
Allegations included giving unwarranted benefits to API despite API's lack of a valid contractor’s license and financial/technical qualifications, resulting in damage to public service.

Prosecution presented witnesses including representatives of the Philippine Construction Accreditation Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission, evidencing API’s lack of contractor’s license and questionable paid-up capital.
Testimonies indicated Alvarez chaired the PBAC and requested the SB’s authorization to enter into the MOA.
Defense argued substantial compliance with the BOT law, noting no actual government funds were disbursed and that API was involved in other BOT projects.
Defense also argued the project was an unsolicited proposal, and that Alvarez acted in good faith relying on representations from API and SB.

The Sandiganbayan found Alvarez guilty for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 due to:

The government suffered actual damages estimated at ₱4,800,000.00 due to demolition of condemned buildings and project failure.
Alvarez was sentenced to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office, and ordered to indemnify the municipality.

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on June 29, 2011, determining that Alvarez acted with manifest partiality and gross negligence despite absence of bad faith.
Subsequent motion for reconsideration raised issues of substantial compliance, equal protection, presumption of innocence, and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Solicitor General maintained that the requirements under the BOT law were not complied with and that damages were proven.
Justice Bersamin dissented, arguing for acquittal on grounds of failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the unsolicited nature of the proposal and lack of actual damage.

Whether the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court erred in finding Alvarez guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 based on alleged gross negligence, manifest partiality, or bad faith in awarding the BOT contract.
Whether the project constituted a solicited or unsolicited proposal under the BOT Law (R.A. No. 6957 as amended by R.A. No. 7718) and whether this distinction affects the application of the law and procedures.
Whether there was compliance or substantial compliance with the requirements of the BOT law, including:

Publication of invitation for proposals in a newspaper of general circulation;
Approval of the project by the Investment Coordinating Committee of NEDA;
Submission of a complete proposal including company profile, feasibility study, contractor’s license, and financial capabilities; and
Posting of performance security and proof of equity.

Whether Alvarez's constitutional rights, particularly the presumption of innocence and equal protection of the laws, were violated, including the claim that he was singled out among other government officials.
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved actual undue injury or damage suffered by the government as required by Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.