G.R. No. 213500 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Espina

The Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) filed an affidavit-complaint on July 11, 2012, and a supplemental complaint on July 17, 2012, before the Office of the Ombudsman.
The complaints charged PS/Supt. Rainier A. Espina and other PNP officers (as well as private individuals) with various offenses, including violations of Republic Act (RA) 7080, RA 3019, RA 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), and Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents under the Revised Penal Code.
The allegations arose from irregularities in the procurement process involving 40 tires and the repair, refurbishment, repowering, and maintenance of 28 units of V-150 Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs), as well as transportation and delivery expenses for 18 units of LAYs, between August and December 2007.

The FFIB-MOLEO alleged non-compliance with the bidding procedures prescribed under RA 9184 and its IRR by noting several lapses:

Failure to furnish copies of bid documents to potential bidders.
Absence of pre-procurement and pre-bid conferences.
Non-publication of the invitation to bid in a newspaper of general circulation.
Failure to require the submission of eligibility, technical, and financial documents from bidders.
No conduct of post-qualification processes.

Additionally, the complaint noted “ghost deliveries” whereby the tires were never delivered and the repair and refurbishment works on the LAVs were not performed.
The total amount involved in these transactions was computed at P409,740,000.00, broken down into:

At the time of the procurements, Espina served as the Acting Chief of the Management Division of the PNP Directorate for Comptrollership.
He was implicated for signing Inspection Report Forms (IRFs) that purportedly confirmed the delivery of tires and the performance of repair and refurbishment works on the LAVs.
By affixing his signature, Espina was accused of facilitating the fraudulent disbursement of government funds even though the goods and services were not actually delivered or rendered.

Espina contended that he had no participation in the bidding or procurement process because his role was limited to the post-procurement inspection of deliveries.
He argued that his duty under Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) No. XX4 (dated November 17, 1993) was merely to “note” the reports submitted by his subordinates and not to conduct a personal physical inspection of deliveries.
Espina further claimed that he relied in good faith on the competence and representations of his subordinates in preparing the IRFs.

The Office of the Ombudsman initially issued a Joint Resolution (December 19, 2012) and a Joint Order (July 8, 2013) finding Espina liable for violations and charging him with Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty.
Subsequently, on reconsideration, the Ombudsman dropped some of the charges but sustained others, including recommendations for dismissal.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled on February 27, 2014, that Espina was not guilty of Grave Misconduct or Serious Dishonesty but was instead guilty of Simple Misconduct.
The CA imposed a three-month suspension on Espina, which he argued was insufficient relative to the gravity of the irregularities.
Petitioners (the Ombudsman and FFIB-MOLEO) sought further review, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.

Whether PS/Supt. Rainier A. Espina should be held administratively liable for the charges arising from his signature on the IRFs in connection with the alleged anomalous transactions.

Whether the acts of Espina constitute Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty, as initially found by the Ombudsman, or whether his actions are limited to Simple Misconduct.
Whether Espina’s reliance on the reports of his subordinates absolves him or mitigates the severity of his liability.

Whether, as the Acting Chief of the Management Division, Espina had an independent duty to verify the completeness and propriety of the Inspection Report Forms and attached documents before affixing his signature.
Whether his failure to inquire further into the suspiciously short period in which the works were allegedly completed amounts to gross neglect of duty.