Title
Villanueva vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 218652
Decision Date
Feb 23, 2022
Public officials and petitioner conspired to award contracts to petitioner's companies, violating RA 3019 through manifest partiality and bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 243818)

Key Dates

  • December 19, 2000: MOA between DOH-CHD Western Visayas and Municipality of Janiuay for the Rescue and Emergency Disaster Program.
  • January 15, 2001: Public bidding for the purchase of emergency medicines; award to AM-Europharma (₱13,191,223.00) and Mallix Drug (₱1,744,926.00).
  • February 23, 2015: Sandiganbayan decision finding petitioner and co-accused guilty under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
  • June 8, 2015: Sandiganbayan resolution denying reconsideration.
  • February 23, 2022: Supreme Court decision on petition for review.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution: Public office as a public trust; Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction under Article XI.
  • Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3(e).
  • COA Circular No. 92-386 (public bidding rules; definition of failed bidding).
  • Local Government Code of 1991, Section 368 (emergency purchase exception).
  • Rule 45, Rules of Court (petition for review on certiorari; limited to questions of law).

Factual Background

  1. DOH-CHD released ₱15 million to Janiuay for Senator Sotto’s emergency medical program, implemented via an MOA through Mayor Locsin.
  2. Invitations to bid for medicines were published; three suppliers expressed interest: AM-Europharma, Mallix Drug, and Phil. Pharmawealth.
  3. Bidding scheduled January 12, 2001 was postponed to January 15, 2001 due to absence of the provincial auditor.
  4. On January 15, the Committee on Awards opened bids without an auditor’s representative and recommended awards to Europharma and Mallix Drug.
  5. DOH accreditation of Europharma was still suspended; both entities were owned/controlled by Villanueva.
  6. Mayor Locsin approved payment; medicines were delivered January 16 and payments made January 17, 2001.
  7. BFAD testing found P240,000.00 worth of cotrimoxazole non-compliant; replacements delivered October 16, 2001.
  8. Provincial auditor issued notices of disallowance; audit uncovered suspended accreditation and undisclosed ownership links.
  9. Ombudsman-Visayas investigation led to indictment for violation of RA 3019 § 3(e).

Sandiganbayan Ruling

  • Convicted petitioner and co-accused for conspiring to give AM-Europharma and Mallix Drug unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in procurement, demonstrating manifest partiality and evident bad faith.
  • Imposed indeterminate penalty of 6 years, 1 month to 10 years; perpetual disqualification from public office; no civil liability for lack of proven damage.
  • Denied reconsideration in June 2015.

Issues Raised on Review

I. Conviction for offenses not stated in the amended information.
II. Reliance on COA Circular No. 92-386, which is not penal law.
III. Alleged adherence to emergency procurement rules.
IV. Applicability of Local Government Code § 368 (emergency purchases).
V. Status of the LMP as a separate juridical personality.
VI. Credibility of Pharmawealth’s denial of participation.
VII. Qualifications of Europharma despite pending renewal.
VIII. Requirement of DOH accreditation for local procurement of medicines.
IX. Piercing the corporate veil of Europharma and Mallix Drug.
X. Conspiracy based on circumstantial evidence subject to equipoise doctrine.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

  1. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
    • Under the 1987 Constitution and Rule 45, review is limited to questions of law; Sandiganbayan’s factual findings are conclusive absent exceptions (speculation, misapprehension of fact, grave abuse).
  2. Sufficiency of the Information
    • Requirements under Rule 110, Section 6 met: accused named; statutory designation of offense (RA 3019 § 3(e)); specific acts and omissions; date/place of offense.
  3. Elements of RA 3019 § 3(e)
    • (a) Public officer discharging official functions (met for co-accused); private person (Villanueva) charged as conspirator.
    • (b) Manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence (found in fast‐tracked bidding and awards without performance bond).
    • (c) Undue injury to the government or unwarranted benefits to a private party (the latter clearly established; actual damage need not be proved).
  4. COA Circular No. 92-386
    • Properly cited to demonstrate bidding failure (only disqualified/suspended bidders participated), reinforcing manifest partiality.
  5. Emergency Purchase Defense
    • Requisites of LGC § 368 (imminent danger, ten-day limit, certifications) not present; issuance of invitations to bid shows intent for competitive procurement.
  6. Damage vs. Unwarranted Benefit
    • Jurisprudence (Cabrera v. People) clarifies that giving unwarranted benefits alone suffices for conviction under § 3(
  7. ...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.