G.R. No. 230704 - Reyes vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon

On February 26, 2015, the Field Investigation Office II of the Office of the Ombudsman initiated a criminal and administrative investigation by filing a complaint dated December 18, 2014.
The complaint was filed against the officers and members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Municipality of Palauig, Zambales, including petitioner Corazon C. Reyes (Vice-Chairman) and her co-members.
The factual basis of the complaint was derived from the results of a post-audit examination conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA).

The procurement in question involved the acquisition of office supplies and materials for Calendar Year 2006.
The Municipality of Palauig resorted to the alternative method of procurement known as canvass/shopping.

This method was chosen reportedly to obtain readily available goods at the most advantageous price.
The Canvass Sheets disclosed participation by several local suppliers, with Tabing Daan Mart emerging as the winning supplier for providing the lowest price bid.

Procurement was made without an Annual Procurement Plan (APP).
The use of canvass/shopping was not a method provided by the applicable guidelines.
An undue favor was given to Tabing Daan Mart, whose owner was, as later certified, Teresita Reyes Lising – the sister of petitioner Reyes.

The complaint further alleged that by failing to disclose the familial relationship as required under Section 47 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9184, the petitioner and her co-respondents had committed irregularities amounting to corrupt practices under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (and Section 3(i) was dismissed for lack of probable cause).

The Annual Procurement Plan for CY 2006 did exist and permitted the use of canvass/shopping as an alternative method of procurement.
The APP had been approved and signed by the Municipal Mayor, thereby giving legitimacy to the procurement process.

The relationship disclosure requirement applied only to competitive bidding and not to procurement via shopping.
The relationship of petitioner with the supplier, though acknowledged, worked positively by yielding reduced prices beneficial to the Municipal government.

In its Resolution dated June 30, 2016, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner and the other BAC members for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in connection with Section 47 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9184.
The Ombudsman’s rationale was primarily that:

The BAC conducted procurement with manifest partiality by selecting Tabing Daan Mart despite knowing the familial tie between petitioner and the owner of the supplier.
The failure to disqualify the supplier due to the relationship and the repeated transactions (a total amount of P804,678.00 made in 25 separate transactions) pointed to evident bad faith.
Non-compliance with the posting requirements under Section 54.2 of the IRR also compounded the irregularity.

A Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner on December 6, 2016 was denied in an Order dated January 5, 2017.

Petitioner (Corazon C. Reyes) filed a Petition for Certiorari on April 10, 2017 challenging the Ombudsman’s Resolution and subsequent Order.
Petitioner’s key assertions were:

That Section 47 of the IRR, requiring disclosure of relationships, was applied retroactively.
That even if applied, the disclosure requirement did not extend to the alternative method of shopping and did not cover BAC members.
That the Ombudsman failed to establish that all the elements for a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were present.

Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in finding probable cause against petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

Specifically, whether the application of Section 47 of the IRR required the disclosure of relationships in the context of procurement by shopping.
Whether the omission of the disclosure of a familial relationship, in this case with the owner of Tabing Daan Mart, constitutes a basis for indictment under Section 3(e).
Whether deviations from the posting and advertising requirements, as observed, sufficiently demonstrate manifest partiality or evident bad faith to satisfy the elements of the offense.