G.R. No. 248086-93 - Montejo vs. People

G.R. Nos. 248086-93 – Filed by Rolando Bolastig Montejo, then Administrative Officer IV of the Province of Samar, challenging the Sandiganbayan decision and resolution that found him guilty on eight counts of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
G.R. No. 248702-09 – Filed by Reynaldo Yabut, a private individual and owner of Raechel Shopper’s Plaza, challenging his conviction on two counts of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and the denial of his motion for reconsideration.

The consolidated cases stem from a complaint for Plunder under RA 7080 filed by the Isog Han Samar Movement, represented by Fr. Noel Labendia, against provincial officials and certain private individuals.

The complaint arose from an audit investigation conducted by the Commission on Audit's Legal and Adjudication Office concerning purchases made by the Province of Western Samar between January 2001 and April 2003.
The purchases involved various transactions:

Procurement of electric desk fans in multiple transactions (e.g., SB-06-CRM-0457, 0458, and 0459 to 0464) with amounts ranging from P244,640.00 to over P3.6 million.
Acquisition of assorted medicines and assorted goods purportedly for relief operations during calamity situations.

The allegations focus on the absence of a bona fide public bidding process and the presence of irregularities in documentation, such as:

Inconsistencies in dates between bidding, purchase orders, delivery receipts, and sales invoices.
Lack of essential documents (e.g., bidder’s bond, proper publication of bidding notices, and performance bonds).
Evidence suggesting that deliveries were made before or on the same day as the alleged bidding, thereby subverting procurement protocols.

Atty. Edna P. Forto, representing the COA Audit Team, testified regarding the audit findings which pointed to noncompliance with COA Circular No. 92-386 and the irregularities in the procurement process.
The Audit Team highlighted anomalies in the procurement of desk fans and medicines, showing that the transactions were not conducted through a public bidding but by means of personal canvass.
Inconsistencies were noted in the supporting documents such as:

ii. Discrepancies where delivery receipts or inspection reports pre-dated the purchase orders.

Accused Gov. Milagrosa Tee Tan asserted that the transactions, including the procurement of desk fans, medicines, and assorted goods, were conducted through proper public bidding, submitting supporting documents like ALOBs, canvasses, delivery receipts, and inspection reports.
Accused-appellant Yabut testified that he participated in the bidding process by attending the published bidding and that his shop was awarded the contract based on his bid.
However, several defense witnesses’ testimonies contradict the claim of a properly conducted bidding process, pointing instead to irregularities such as the lack of detailed specifications and inconsistencies in the bidding documents.

The prosecution also presented evidence regarding the emergency purchase claims for assorted goods and medicines.
Testimonies indicated that although relief operations (e.g., for Tropical Depression Nanang or Typhoon Kidang) were mentioned, the timing of the procurements raised doubts regarding the legitimacy of the “emergency” justification.
The records showed that public bidding requirements under RA 7160 and its IRR were not properly observed, highlighting discrepancies in the call for bids, notice publication requirements, and the sequential documentation normally required.

Montejo filed his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a mode of appeal which the Court found to be technically improper given the revised internal rules and the proper mode of appeal as stipulated.
Despite this technical lapse, the Court emphasized the need to review the merits of the case to avoid grave injustice, especially since public funds were involved.

Accused Gov. Tee Tan, one of the charged public officials, was later declared deceased.
Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, her death extinguished her criminal and civil liability pending final judgment, resulting in the dismissal of the case against her.

The conviction of Yabut was based not on the strengths of the prosecution’s evidence but on what the defense characterized as the perceived weakness of the defense evidence.
The Sandiganbayan allegedly ignored exculpatory evidence presented by the prosecution that could have exonerated Yabut.
The Court of Appeals was charged with erroneously ruling that a conspiracy among the accused had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The fundamental issue of whether the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to constitutionally prove Yabut’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The assailed decision and resolution allegedly failed to articulate specific acts or factual details linking Montejo to the criminal elements required by the charged offenses.
Montejo contended that he was convicted for offenses (eight counts of violation of Section 3(e)) without the prosecution meeting the burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He further argued that the evidence did not establish a conspiracy involving him with other accused officials, including Gov. Tee Tan and Yabut.