Case Summary (G.R. No. 255087)
Applicable Law
The case was decided under the relevant provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Republic Act No. 3019, which governs corrupt practices of public officers. The case invokes provisions that declare acts causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or affording unwarranted benefits as unlawful conduct.
Facts of the Case
In the procurement process, the MCIAA sought to acquire an ARFFV through limited source bidding. Despite entering into a contract with AsiaBorders, the prosecution alleged that the accused-appellants facilitated an advance payment of ₱6,000,000.00 to AsiaBorders without proper justification since the vehicle was not yet delivered or inspected, which violated government procurement laws and manifested evident bad faith.
Proceedings Before the Sandiganbayan
Charges against the accused included causing undue injury to the government and entering into a contract manifestly disadvantageous to the government. During the trial, testimonies revealed procedural irregularities in the procurement process and insufficient compliance with the required qualifications for bidders. The Sandiganbayan found sufficient evidence to convict the accused, assigning liability for the advance payment to AsiaBorders and declaring the contract price grossly disadvantageous compared to the actual value of the vehicle.
Decision of the Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan's decision convicted the accused-appellants, emphasizing their roles in causing unjustified benefits to AsiaBorders and their evident bad faith in the procurement process. The decision was based on the combined findings of collusion and procedural violations among the accused, particularly in altering bid requirements without justifiable grounds.
Appeal
In their appeals, the accused-appellants contended that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the allegations against them. Yap asserted that the payment to AsiaBorders was part of the contractual obligations and not an advance payment. OrdoAez and Dublin claimed they were no longer in their positions during pivotal actions related to the opening of the letter of credit. Furthermore, Barillo argued that the prosecution's evidence did not establish the remittance of the advance payment sufficiently.
Ruling on Appeal
Upon review, the Court concluded that the Sandiganbayan had improperly based its conviction on evidence not included in the initial Information, violating the accused’s right to be informed of the charg
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 255087)
Case Background and Parties
- The case involves prosecution of Adelberto Federico Yap, Sigfredo V. Dublin, Veronica S. OrdoAez, Ma. Venus B. Casas, and Marlon E. Barillo for violations of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- The offenses charged are violation of Section 3(e) in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1076 and violation of Section 3(g) in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1077.
- The case arises from procurement irregularities relative to the purchase of one Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting Vehicle (ARFFV) by the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA).
- MCIAA is a government-owned and controlled corporation attached to the Department of Transportation created under Republic Act No. 6958.
Facts and Procurement Process
- MCIAA sought to upgrade firefighting capabilities for the 12th ASEAN Summit in Cebu (December 2006) and resolved to purchase one ARFFV through limited source bidding.
- Terms of Reference stipulated requirements including qualifications of bidders, evaluation criteria, and award conditions.
- The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) held pre-bidding and bidding activities, with AsiaBorders, Inc. (represented by Barillo) and Pelican Bay Group Inc. as bidders.
- BAC initially required five years' experience of bidder's representative or agent, later reduced to one year through Bid Bulletins to encourage bidder participation.
- The MCIAA Board approved increasing budget from USD 630,000 to USD 785,000 for the procurement, and later issued Notice of Award and executed the Contract with AsiaBorders for USD 732,000.
- Article V of the Contract required the supplier to open an irrevocable letter of credit, with 80% of costs paid by supplier and 20% by MCIAA, up to PHP 6 million.
- MCIAA issued Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2006-03118 allowing payment of PHP 6 million to AsiaBorders for costs relating to the letter of credit before delivery of ARFFV.
Charges and Allegations
- Accused-appellants were charged with:
- Violating Section 3(e) for causing an unlawful advance partial payment despite AsiaBorders allegedly not being a qualified bidder, and for violations related to the letter of credit and delayed delivery causing undue injury to government.
- Yap was additionally charged with violation of Section 3(g) for entering into a contract manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.
- Allegations included conspiracy among the accused, manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence.
- Prosecution claimed that AsiaBorders was not financially capable and should not have been qualified; advance payment was unlawful and caused undue injury.
- There was under-declaration of the ARFFV's value to the Bureau of Customs, allegedly leading to loss of revenue.