Case Digest (G.R. No. 140656)
Facts:
Mayor Felipe K. Constantino v. Hon. Sandiganbayan (First Division) and The People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 140656 & 154482, September 13, 2007, Supreme Court, Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.In an Information dated July 31, 1996, Felipe K. Constantino, then Mayor of Malungon, Sarangani, and Norberto N. Lindong, president of Norlovanian Corporation, were charged before the Sandiganbayan (First Division) with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for entering into a purported lease (actually a lease/purchase scheme) of seven units of heavy equipment that allegedly caused undue injury to the municipality. The municipality had earlier adopted resolutions prioritizing acquisition of heavy equipment and authorizing negotiated contract(s); two public biddings had failed. On February 28, 1996, Constantino and Lindong executed a Lease Agreement and an Undertaking; the equipment was delivered March 4, 1996, and payments totaling P2,177,090.91 were made March 6, 1996. Several Sanggunian members later filed complaints and the Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 47 stopping payments.
At trial the prosecution presented a COA auditor who reported that the contract was disadvantageous, that Norlovanian had no documentary proof of ownership, and that the procedure violated procurement rules, allegedly resulting in wastage of government funds. Defense witness Lindong testified the transaction was a negotiated lease/purchase in conformity with the Sanggunian mandate and that relevant committees had later certified concurrence; some councilors who complained admitted they did not formally pass a resolution rejecting the contract.
The Sandiganbayan found both accused guilty of violating Section 3(e) by reason of gross inexcusable negligence (for Constantino) and as co-conspirator (for Lindong), sentenced them to imprisonment, perpetual disqualification, and ordered indemnity to the municipality in the amount of P2,177,090.91 with interest. Constantino filed a Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 140656) seeking review of the Sandiganbayan decision; Lindong filed petitions and motions challenging execution and later a separate Rule 65 petition (G.R. No. 154482) assailing three Sandiganbayan orders directing execution (appearance for execution, denial to defer execution, issuance of bench warrant and confiscation of cash bond). Lindong had earlier filed a Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 142379) which this Court dismissed for procedural defects and entered judgment on July 25, 2001.
During the pendency of his appeal Constantino died (April 25, 2006). Because the guilt of Lindong was predi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Constantino’s Rule 45 petition rendered moot by his death such that the Court must deny relief notwithstanding the merits?
- Was Constantino properly convicted under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (i.e., did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that he caused undue injury through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence)?
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing and seeking to execute the challenged orders against Lindong, a private co-accused, in...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)