Case Digest (G.R. No. 192866)
Facts:
Pedro G. Resurreccion, Joseph Cometa and Criseforo Literato, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192866, July 09, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. The petition seeks review of the Sandiganbayan’s February 11, 2010 decision and its July 10, 2010 resolution in Criminal Case Nos. 25235–25239, which convicted the petitioners and co-accused Pilarito Orejas of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019; Resurreccion was also convicted of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.At the time of the transactions, the petitioners held municipal offices in Pilar, Surigao del Norte: Resurreccion (Mayor), Cometa (Municipal Budget Officer) and Literato (Municipal Engineer); co-accused Wilfredo B. Consigo (Municipal Treasurer) later died, and Orejas was Municipal Accountant. The Commission on Audit (COA) teams (Auditor Uy and Auditor Napana) conducted a special and post audit covering 1992–1994 and issued a COA Special Audit Report finding numerous irregular disbursements for construction materials and other purchases totaling several amounts, made without public bidding, paid in cash, unsupported by complete documentation, and otherwise violative of procurement and auditing rules (e.g., Sections 362 and 367 of R.A. 7160, Section 4(6) of P.D. 1445, and Section 9 of COA Circular No. 92-382). The COA report also flagged a P3,000 reimbursement to Mayor Resurreccion as an improper diversion of Development Fund monies and noted unauthorized payrolls and honoraria.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed Informations in the Sandiganbayan charging multiple counts under Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 against the municipal officers (different counts assigned to different accused) and a separate malversation charge against Resurreccion (Criminal Case No. 25236). On arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial the parties stipulated to certain facts and authenticity of exhibits. The prosecution presented COA auditors as witnesses whose testimonies corroborated the COA report showing lack of public bidding, cash disbursements, and unsupported payrolls; the trial court denied the accused’s demurrer to evidence. The defense failed to present witnesses despite opportunities; they filed memoranda arguing insufficiency of proof and justification for informal procurement given municipal class and budget constraints, and Resurreccion contested the characterization of his P3,000 reimbursement as malversation.
The Sandiganbayan, in its February 11, 2010 decision, convicted Resurreccion and Orejas in Criminal Cases Nos. 25235 and 25237 for procurement irregularities; convicted Literato for one count (Crim. No. 25238) and Cometa for one count (Crim. No....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the alleged negligence of the petitioners’ former counsel in failing to inform them of case developments—resulting in their failure to present defense evidence—warrants setting aside the judgment of conviction.
- Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on the ground that the motion lacked the required noti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)