G.R. No. L-13918 - Caltex , Inc. vs. Katipu Labor Union

The case originated from an Information filed in the Sandiganbayan, charging the accused-appellants—Gemma Florante Adana, Roland Cuenca Grijalvo, Felix Abelano Timsan, Emmanuel Fortuno Enteria, and Jonathan Kee Cartagena—and a private individual, Jose Ely H. Solivar, with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The Information alleged that between August 22, 2007, and January 9, 2008, in the Municipality of Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay, the accused-appellants, while performing their official functions, conspired and colluded in the procurement of heavy equipment from CVCK Trading, despite noncompliance with the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184) and its implementing rules and regulations.

The procurement involved the purchase of five pieces of heavy equipment—a road grader, a payloader, a road roller, and two dump trucks—amounting to Eight Million Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php8,800,000.00).
Several irregularities were noted in the procurement process, including:

The Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid (IAEB) was not published in the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS), but only in the Malaya newspaper.
The IAEB did not indicate the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) until the opening of bids.
The Notice of Award to CVCK Trading was issued before the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) approved CVCK Trading as the winning bidder.
No formal contract was executed between the Municipality of Naga and CVCK Trading.
The specifications of the equipment (specifically the road grader and road roller) were amended after the issuance of the Notice of Award, contrary to procurement laws, and no rebidding was conducted thereafter.
The IAEB contained prohibited brand references (e.g., “Isuzu”) in violation of the relevant procurement guidelines.

Accused-appellants – all holding various public offices (with Adana as Municipal Mayor and head of the procuring entity, and the others as members of the BAC and municipal officers) – initially filed separate motions regarding the Information and subsequent procedural issues, including a Motion to Quash, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan.
At arraignment, the accused-appellants refused to plead, leading the court to enter pleas of not guilty on their behalf.
During pre-trial, parties stipulated facts regarding the roles and actions of the accused-appellants, including:

The issuance of Resolution No. 14 by the Sangguniang Bayan authorizing a loan from the Land Bank of the Philippines for the amount (Php8,800,000.00).
The conduct of the bidding process and subsequent amendments to the procurement documents.

The prosecution highlighted the numerous lapses in the bidding process and pointed to evidence suggesting procedural irregularities that could have given unwarranted benefits to CVCK Trading.
The defense asserted that the deviations (such as not using PhilGEPS for publication and the subsequent amendment in equipment specifications) were either justified by local circumstances or did not rise to the level of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

On July 31, 2019, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019, sentencing them to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration filed by the accused-appellants were denied in a Resolution dated October 4, 2019, which ultimately led to the filing of the present appeal.

Whether the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 by causing undue injury to the government or bestowing unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the procurement process.
Whether the procedural lapses in the procurement of heavy equipment—such as non-compliance with the Government Procurement Reform Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations—constitute manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence as required to sustain a conviction under Section 3(e).
Whether the irregularities in the bidding process, despite being procedural lapses, can be equated with or support the substantive elements of criminal liability under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.