G.R. No. 111009-12 - People vs. Flores y Salinas

A public bidding was conducted leading to a contract entered into between the Provincial Governor of Bulacan and Halrey Construction, Inc., represented by its President, Celso Halili, for constructing the Bocaue-San Jose Road (Bagbaguin Section).
The contract covered 1,020 lineal meters at a total price of P963,850.00, provided for a 120-calendar-day period from the date of award, with liquidated damages and a ten (10%) retention fee.
A Notice to Proceed was issued (Exhibit “G”), and on November 24, 1982, a change order issued by the Provincial Engineer adjusted the station limits by transferring 200 meters from the end to the beginning of the project, without changing the overall length or cost.

As Senior Technical Property Inspectors of the Commission on Audit (COA) for Region III, petitioners were assigned to inspect the project on March 15 and again on March 21, 1983.
It is alleged that during their visits, instead of merely carrying out an inspection or contract review, they deliberately inquired about and demanded P20,000.00 from the contractor, Celso Halili, allegedly to secure favorable post-inspection reports.
Discrepancies exist regarding the purpose of their trips; while petitioners claimed the trip was solely for inspection and contract review, evidence suggests the visit was used as a pretext to solicit money.

Danilo Francisco, foreman of Halrey Construction, testified that on March 15, 1983, he was asked by petitioners to inform their employer to prepare P20,000.00 for completing their report.
The testimony of Emiliana Gerona, secretary of Halrey Construction, corroborated the presence of the petitioners at the contractor’s office on both March 15 and March 21, 1983.
Testimonies by petitioners themselves—which include details of the inspection and contract review—contradict the chronological evidence on the project’s completion and question the necessity of an “inspection” after the project had been finished.
Documentary evidence such as cash vouchers, journal entries, and inspection reports (Exhibits C to F, and the Post-Inspection Report submitted on March 22, 1983) raise issues on the proper conduct of the inspection, showing a pattern of behavior allegedly in pursuit of kickbacks.

The contractor, Celso Halili, had completed the project ahead of the 120-day period, as attested by the issuance of certificates of completion and approved Statements of Work (Exhibits H–J).
Disbursement Voucher No. 11-199 and subsequent post-audit actions revealed a disallowance amounting to P373,944.75 based on the adverse findings from the petitioners’ inspection reports.
Further evidence, such as the report by COA inspectors in January 1985 (the De la Cruz Report), confirmed technical deficiencies in the project but also indicated that the disputed 200-meter adjustment was part of an authorized change order.
Petitioners argued that their reports were misconstrued, asserting they had no knowledge of the change order and that any “inspection” was legitimate and not a cover for soliciting a bribe.

Petitioners contended that the errors in their Post-Inspection Report and the alleged solicitation of P20,000.00 were either misinterpretations or the results of improper administrative instructions, not indicators of corrupt intent.
They disputed the credibility and the weight of prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, asserting that inconsistencies rendered the bribery claim unsubstantiated.
The Solicitor General’s earlier manifestation indicated that, upon review, petitioners appeared innocent; however, the investigation and subsequent evidentiary findings leaned towards establishing a pattern of misconduct.

The sequence of events—from contract award and execution, through the adjustments made by administrative authorities, to the conduct of the COA inspectors—forms the factual background against which petitioners’ intentions are measured.
The cumulative evidence from witness testimonies and documentary records pointed to irregularities in the inspection process, suggesting that the trip originally for inspection and “contract review” was used as a vehicle to solicit a bribe.
Despite dissenting views and conflicting interpretations, the factual record was deemed by the trial court to be sufficient to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the petitioners acted with corrupt intent.

Whether the Post-Inspection/Contract Review Report prepared by petitioners was executed in bad faith and as part of a scheme to solicit a kickback.
Whether the act of visiting the contractor’s office and the subsequent communications by petitioners equate to a deliberate request or demand for P20,000.00 in connection with the project.
Whether the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and documentary records, proves beyond reasonable doubt that petitioners violated Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
Whether the inconsistencies in the inspection reports and the alleged failure to verify changes (the adjustment of station limits) undermine the credibility of petitioners’ defense.
Whether the admitted evidence, despite contentions as hearsay and self-serving, sufficiently establishes a pattern of behavior indicative of corrupt practices.