Case Digest (A.C. No. 11439)
Facts:
Felicitas P. Ong v. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176546 (promulgated August 9, 2010), Supreme Court Third Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., ponente. Petitioner Felicitas P. Ong (former Mayor of Angadanan, Isabela) sought review of the Sandiganbayan Decision dated November 13, 2006 and the Resolution of February 2, 2007, which convicted her of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.While Mayor, petitioner purchased an Isuzu dump truck on August 12, 1996 for P750,000.00 from Josephine Ching (J.C. Trucking) for municipal use. A complaint was filed on March 26, 1997 by petitioner’s successor Mayor Diosdado Siquian and several Sangguniang Bayan members alleging malversation and irregularities, including overpricing and lack of bidding. A Graft Investigation Officer initially found no probable cause, but after reconsideration petitioner was indicted for violation of RA 3019; an Information was filed November 21, 1997 and petitioner pleaded not guilty on January 12, 1999.
At trial witnesses for the prosecution (including Ramon De Guzman Sevilla and Sangguniang Bayan members Ruben and Mirasol Lappay) testified that comparable dump trucks cost not more than P500,000.00, that the truck was reconditioned rather than brand new, and that no public bidding or Sangguniang Bayan resolution had been undertaken. Petitioner testified that the municipality had appropriated P1,000,000.00 for the purchase, that she procured the truck by negotiated purchase relying on COA Resolution Nos. 95‑244 and 95‑244‑A, that a COA regional engineer inspected and found the truck fit, and that COA did not issue a notice of disallowance.
The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court disturb the Sandiganbayan’s factual findings and credibility determinations?
- Did petitioner violate Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 by purchasing the dump truck via negotiated purchase without complying with procurement law, thus causing undue injury and conferri...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)