Case Summary (G.R. No. 248086-93)
Antecedents
The cases resulted from a complaint for Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 prompted by the Isog Han Samar Movement against public officials of the provincial government of Western Samar. The complaint was rooted in an audit investigation by the Commission on Audit (COA), revealing irregular procurement practices between January 1, 2001, and April 2003, leading to eight counts of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The named individuals, including Montejo and Yabut, were implicated in conspiring to cause undue injury to the government through improper procurement procedures.
Prosecution's Version
The prosecution presented testimonies from multiple witnesses, including state auditors who detailed discrepancies in procurement documents, such as the lack of proper public bidding for the acquisition of electric fans and medicines, thus supporting allegations of bad faith and manifest partiality in favor of specific suppliers, including Yabut’s business. Documents showed that instead of following prescribed procurement processes, purchases were made hastily and inaccurately reflected as compliant with legal requirements. The prosecution maintained that no bona fide bidding or genuine emergency existed to justify the direct purchasing methods employed.
Defense's Version
The defense, led by accused Gov. Tee Tan and Yabut, argued that all transactions adhered to legal protocols and that the procurement processes were transparent. Testimonies from various defense witnesses aimed to confirm that the purchases were necessary and conducted through proper channels. They emphasized the existence of supporting documentation, asserting that claimed procedural errors were either negligible or non-existent.
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan convicted Montejo, Tan, and Yabut for violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, determining they had engaged in conspiratorial acts that favored specific suppliers without adhering to lawful procurement practices, thereby inflicting undue injury on the government. The court sentenced Montejo and Yabut to prison terms with perpetual disqualification from public office while acquitting other co-accused for lack of evidence establishing their culpability.
Issues Raised on Appeal
Yabut contended that the Sandiganbayan erred by relying on the weaknesses in his defense rather than on the strength of the prosecution's case. He also criticized the finding of conspiracy, which he argued was not substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt. Montejo similarly challenged the sufficiency of evidence and the specifics of his alleged misconduct.
Court’s Ruling on Appeal
The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision and resolution, validating the conviction based on a solid evidential foundation
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 248086-93)
Case Overview
- The case involves consolidated appeals from two separate petitions: G.R. No. 248086-93 filed by Rolando Bolastig Montejo and G.R. No. 248702-09 filed by Reynaldo Angeles Yabut.
- Both petitions seek to reverse the Decision dated March 1, 2019, and the Resolution dated June 26, 2019, of the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division.
- The Sandiganbayan found Montejo and Yabut guilty of multiple counts of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Antecedents of the Case
- A complaint for Plunder was lodged by the Isog Han Samar Movement against various officials of the provincial government of Western Samar and private individuals, based on an audit conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA).
- The complaint stemmed from irregularities in procurement practices, specifically the purchases of electric fans, medicines, and assorted goods without public bidding, leading to undue injury to the government.
Charges and Accusations
- The Office of the Ombudsman charged several public officials, including Montejo and Yabut, with multiple counts of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
- Specific Criminal Cases included SB-06-CRM-0457 to 0464, detailing the transactions that occurred without proper bidding protocols.
Key Testimonies and Evidence Presented
Prosecution's Evidence:
- Testimonies from Atty. Edna P. Forto, a State Auditor, revealed that essential procurement documents were missing or inconsistent, indicating that public bidding was not genuinely conducted.
- Multiple irregularities were hig