Case Digest (G.R. No. 231530-33)
Facts:
Ramon C. Renales v. People of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. 231530-33) and LCDR Rosendo C. Roque v. Sandiganbayan (First Division) and People of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. 231603-08), June 16, 2021, Supreme Court First Division, Carandang, J., writing for the Court.
On August 5, 2011, twelve Informations were filed charging various Philippine Navy (PN) officials and private individuals with violations of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The accused included LCDR Rosendo C. Roque (procurement officer), Ramon C. Renales (head, Price Monitoring Office), other PN officers and several private suppliers. The allegations were that the accused conspired to certify emergency purchases of medicines without public bidding, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to suppliers and causing undue injury to the Government.
At arraignment Roque, Renales and several co‑accused pleaded not guilty; some accused remained at large. During the pretrial stage Commodore Torres moved to quash on speedy‑trial grounds; the Sandiganbayan denied relief, but this Court granted Torres’s Rule 65 petition and dismissed the case against him. The Commission on Audit (COA), through Director Mary S. Adelino, audited PN transactions (1991–June 1992) and reported that medicines were procured by emergency procurement though used for stock purposes and that canvass from three suppliers under COA Circular No. 85‑55‑A, Sec. 4.1.b, was not followed; total questioned purchases amounted to about P2.9 million.
At the Sandiganbayan trial the prosecution presented its COA witness; the defense presented five witnesses including Roque and Renales. Roque testified that requisitions came from PN units and were supported by certifications (e.g., “badly needed,” zero stock) from the Medical Therapeutic Board and other technical personnel, and that he required documents before issuing purchase orders (distribution lists, procurement directive, certificate of emergency purchase, certification of exclusive distributorship). Renales testified that as head of the Price Monitoring Office he performed ministerial price‑comparison duties using a computerized database (PIMS), noted “not canvassed/prices noted and filed” when supplier exclusivity was certified, and did not choose suppliers or determine generic versus brand status.
On January 12, 2017 the Sandiganbayan, Special First Division, convicted Dumancas, Roque, Renales, Tolin and Tuason (and acquitted private individual Aquino) of multiple counts under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, imposing indeterminate imprisonment of six years and one month to ten years and perpetual disqualification for each count; the court acquitted them of Section 3(g) charges. The Sandiganbayan emphasized: absence of an actual emergency (medicines were common OTC used for stock), failure to canvass three suppliers as required by COA Circular No. 85‑55‑A, and deliberate use of branded names (rather than generic) to avoid canvassing; it also found conspiracy and that the acts of Roque and Renales facilitated unwarranted benefits to five suppliers. After the Sandiganbayan denied their motions for reconsideration (May 9, 2017) on speedy‑trial grounds (holding the delay reasonable give...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are Rosendo C. Roque and Ramon C. Renales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)