Case Summary (G.R. No. 237432-33)
Proceedings Overview
The petition before the Supreme Court seeks to review the Decision dated November 17, 2017, and the Resolution dated February 9, 2018, issued by the Sandiganbayan First Division. The Sandiganbayan found Nieves guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
Charges and Allegations
In Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0073, the information alleges that Nieves, while acting in his official capacity, committed acts that resulted in unwarranted benefits to Felta Multi-Media, Inc. by falsifying a BAC Resolution, consequently facilitating the release of public funds amounting to P4,776,786.00. In Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0076, he was charged with falsifying the same BAC Resolution, making it appear that the BAC endorsed direct contracting for the procurement of IT materials instead of following public bidding, which violated Republic Act No. 9184.
Prosecution Evidence
The prosecution presented audit reports indicating irregularities in the transactions involving the DepEd and Felta, including payments made for fictitious entities. Testimonies from various officials asserted that there was no BAC meeting on the specified date, and they denied their signatures' authenticity, implying forgery.
Defense Claims
Nieves maintained that he did not falsify the BAC Resolution and argued that the transaction complied with budgeting requirements. He claimed that the documentation had been properly submitted to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and that there was no prohibition against the procurement method he employed.
Sandiganbayan's Findings
The Sandiganbayan rejected Nieves's defense, concluding that he acted with evident bad faith and gross negligence by disregarding the moratorium on IT procurements and falsifying documents. It affirmed the prosecution's contention that Nieves's actions caused undue injury to the government by facilitating unjust financial benefits to Felta.
Legal Framework and Violation of RA 3019
The Court reiterated that public officers may be found guilty under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 if it is shown that they acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Sandiganbayan had established that Nieves, by bypassing mandatory public bidding procedures and the moratorium, caused damages to the government, meeting the statutory prerequisites for conviction.
Falsification Under Article 171
Regarding the falsification charge, the Sandiganbayan highlighted that p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 237432-33)
Background of the Case
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Jesus Loretizo Nieves, challenging the Sandiganbayan's Decision dated November 17, 2017, and Resolution dated February 9, 2018.
- The Sandiganbayan found Nieves guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
Antecedents
- Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0073: Accusations centered around Nieves' alleged misconduct in facilitating a procurement process favoring Felta Multi-Media, Inc., which involved falsifying a Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) Resolution.
- Criminal Case No. SB-15-CRM-0076: Focused on the act of falsification itself, where Nieves purportedly made it seem that the BAC recommended direct contracting for IT materials worth P4,776,786.00 without proper authorization or documentation.
Prosecution's Version
- The prosecution's case was founded on the findings of the Commission on Audit (COA), which revealed irregularities in the release of public funds by the Department of Education (DepEd), Regional Office IX (DepEd-RO IX).
- Key evidence included the revelation that substantial amounts were paid to non-existent entities and the lack of documentation for the payment to Felta.
- Witnesses, including BAC members, testified that they did not meet on