G.R. No. 215104 - Macairan vs. People

The case involves consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division.
The petitions come from multiple accused in two criminal cases (Criminal Case Nos. 26492 and 26493) involving public officers of the Department of Health – National Capital Region (DOH-NCR) and private interests.
The accused include, among others, Rosalinda U. Majarais, Horacia D. Cabrera, Philip F. Du, Imelda Q. Agustin, Enrique L. Perez, Anthony M. Ocampo, Priscilla G. Camposano, and Eufrocina N. Macairan.

10,000 bottles of Paracetamol Suspension 60 ml (125 mg/5 ml) from Aegis Pharmaceuticals.
1,500 bottles of Ferrous Sulfate 250 mg with Vitamin B Complex and Folic Acid from Lumar Pharmaceutical Laboratory.

An anonymous letter dated May 15, 1996 initiated an investigation of alleged irregularities in these procurements, implicating several pharmaceutical companies.
The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause on December 4, 1996 for charges under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

A requisition and issue voucher (RIV) was prepared on March 4, 1996.
A Purchase Order (PO No. 96-97) was issued on May 3, 1996 in favor of Aegis Pharmaceuticals.
Delivery was made on May 10, 1996, and a Certificate of Acceptance executed on May 13, 1996.
Disbursement Voucher (DV No. D1269-96-0572) and corresponding check were released on May 13, 1996.
The Information alleged that the purchase was made at P25.00 per bottle when a prior public bidding price was P5.63, resulting in an alleged overprice of Php 193,700.00.

For the Ferrous Sulfate with Vitamin B Complex and Folic Acid (Criminal Case No. 26493):

A corresponding RIV was prepared on March 4, 1996.
The DOH-NCR issued a PO on May 3, 1996 directing the purchase of 1,500 bottles at P220.00 per bottle.
Delivery occurred on May 10, 1996, with a certificate of acceptance on May 13, 1996 and DV preparation (DV No. D1269-96-05-78).
The allegation was that the purchase deviated from the 1994 Abstract of Bids, in which a lower bid (P73.37) had been received, resulting in an alleged overprice totaling Php 219,945.00.

Witnesses (Purita S. Danga, Rogelio A. Ringpis, and Normita A. Palisoc) testified on the procurement process, documentary trail, and the pricing discrepancies.
Documents such as the DOH-Central Price List for 11 hospitals (showing prices of P5.63 and P9.50) and the 1994 Abstract of Bids were presented as evidence of alleged overpricing and irregularities.

The defense presented testimony from various witnesses including representatives of Aegis and Delamo, as well as administrative officials from DOH-NCR, to explain the procurement procedures.
Testimonies emphasized that the purchases were made based on established practices using results of previous public biddings when no current bidding was available.
Explanations on the differences between Paracetamol suspension and syrup were provided to justify the price differences.

The prosecution based part of its theory on the signatures appearing on documents (RIVs, POs, DVs) which they argued indicated consent and conspiracy.
The defense contended that such signatures were part of routine administrative procedures and did not alone establish a fraudulent or conspiratorial intent.

The Sandiganbayan, after trial, found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Specific findings included:

In Criminal Case No. 26492, a conspiracy to procure overpriced Paracetamol Suspension from Aegis.
In Criminal Case No. 26493, a conspiracy to procure overpriced Ferrous Sulfate with Vitamin B Complex and Folic Acid from Lumar.

The decision and subsequent resolution denied motions for reconsideration, leading to the consolidated petitions now before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

Specifically, whether the evidence adduced established all elements of the crime, including:

The allegation of evident bad faith or manifest partiality in the procurement of overpriced medicines.
The existence of a conspiratorial agreement among the accused solely based on routine administrative signatures.

Whether the documents presented, such as the 1994 Abstract of Bids and the DOH-Central Price List, are reliable and sufficient to prove that overpricing occurred.
Whether the absence of current public bidding and the reliance on previous bidding results by the DOH-NCR, as explained by the defense, negate the inference of malice or fraudulent intent.