Case Digest (G.R. No. 253327)
Facts:
In the case People of the Philippines v. Danilo Reyes Crisologo and Roberto Loleng Manlavi (G.R. No. 253327, June 27, 2022), the accused-appellants Danilo R. Crisologo and Roberto L. Manlavi were public officers serving as President and Senior Vice-President, respectively, of the Philippine Aerospace Development Corporation (PADC), a government-owned and controlled corporation, during 2007-2008 in Pasay City, Philippines. The appellants were charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for conspiring to give unwarranted benefit to Wingtips Parts Corporation by selling PADC aircraft spare parts below the prescribed 30% markup required by PADC’s Revised Pricing Policy, thereby causing undue injury and pecuniary loss to PADC amounting to at least PhP6,246,635.00.
The facts established that in 2006, PADC’s pricing policy set a 30% markup on aircraft parts purchased locally. Nevertheless, in 2007, Manlavi issued a memorandum pr
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 253327)
Facts:
- Parties and Charges
- Danilo R. Crisologo (President of Philippine Aerospace Development Corporation - PADC) and Roberto Loleng Manlavi (Senior Vice-President of PADC) were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- They were accused of conspiring to give unwarranted benefits to Wingtips Parts Corporation by selling PADC aircraft spare parts at a loss, violating the required 30% mark-up pricing policy.
- The alleged pecuniary loss to PADC amounted to at least PhP6,246,635.00, representing the difference between actual selling price and the required standard mark-up price.
- Background and Relevant Facts
- PADC is a government-owned and controlled corporation primarily engaged in aircraft repairs and sale of aircraft spare parts, created under Presidential Decree Nos. 286 and 696.
- In 2006, PADC’s pricing policy committee issued a revised pricing policy mandating a 30% mark-up on acquisition cost for parts purchased locally.
- In November 2007, Manlavi issued a memorandum setting new pricing guidelines for spare parts, aiming to optimize value before parts became scrap, which Crisologo approved by signing the document.
- From February to July 2008, PADC entered into seven sales transactions with Wingtips for aircraft parts under these pricing guidelines.
- The Commission on Audit (COA) initiated an investigation on June 15, 2009 focused on alleged irregularities in these transactions.
- The COA's Fraud Audit Report found:
- The prosecution presented a range of witnesses including COA auditors and SEC representatives establishing the facts.
- Both Crisologo and Manlavi filed Demurrers to Evidence, arguing lack of proof on elements of the offense, claiming good faith, and contesting procedural due process.
- Trial Court Decision
- The Sandiganbayan denied their demurrers and found both guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
- The court held that negotiated sales were used without justification and bypassed required public bidding.
- It found no proof that spare parts were obsolete to warrant pricing below policy.
- The sale caused undue injury to PADC, suffering a loss exceeding PhP6.6 million, and advantaged Wingtips unfairly.
- Crisologo and Manlavi were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one month minimum to ten years maximum, plus perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
- Present Appeal
- Crisologo and Manlavi appealed, reiterating defenses raised at trial and claiming compliance with accepted accounting principles and lack of manifest partiality or bad faith.
Issues:
- Whether or not the appellants, Crisologo and Manlavi, committed violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 by causing undue injury to PADC and giving unwarranted benefits to Wingtips.
- Whether or not there was manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in the sale of PADC aircraft spare parts.
- Whether the sale of spare parts required compliance with public bidding or whether the negotiated sale was permissible under COA Circular guidelines and PADC’s operational mandate as a GOCC.
- Whether the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan was proper.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)