SECOND DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 191611-14, July 29, 2019
LIBRADO M. CABRERA AND FE M. CABRERA, PETITIONERS, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision1 dated November 19, 2009 of the Sandiganbayan (4th Division) which found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and its Resolution2 dated March 10, 2010, which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, in the consolidated Criminal Cases Nos. 27555, 27556, 27557 and 27558.
Petitioners Librado M. Cabrera (Librado) and Fe M. Cabrera (Fe) together with accused Luther H. Leonor (Leonor), as public officers, were charged in four separate Informations3 with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 27555, Librado and Leonor, in their capacity as then Municipal Mayor and Municipal Councilor, respectively, of Taal, Batangas, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence, made several direct purchases of medicines from Diamond Laboratories, Inc. (DLI), a corporation owned by the relatives by consanguinity of Librado. The purchases were made without the benefit of public bidding or canvass giving DLI unwanted benefit and depriving the Municipality of Taal the opportunity to avail of a better price of the same quality of supplies. The total costs of the purchases amounted to P503,920.35. Leonor, despite being the Municipal Councilor, acted as the authorized representative of DLI as he was the one who received all payments due and signed all pertinent documents of the transactions.
In Criminal Case No. 27556, Librado, then Mayor of the Municipality of Taal, Batangas, taking advantage of his official position, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence, caused undue injury. to the Municipality of Taal, to the government as a whole and to public interest at the same time, gave unwarranted benefit to himself by reimbursing, collecting and appropriating the total amount of P27,651.83 representing the expenses he incurred during his unauthorized and illegal travels to Manila.
In Criminal Case No. 27557, Fe and Leonor, in their capacity as then Municipal Mayor and Municipal Councilor, respectively, of Taal, Batangas through manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence, made several direct purchases of medicines from DLI, a corporation owned by the relatives by consanguinity of Fe's husband, Librado. The purchases were made without the benefit of public bidding or canvass giving DLI unwanted benefit and depriving the Municipality of Taal the opportunity to avail of a better price of the same quality of supplies. The total costs of the purchases amounted to P1,042,902.46. Leonor, despite being the Municipal Councilor, acted as the authorized representative of DLI as he was the one who received all payments due and signed all pertinent documents of the transactions.
In Criminal Case No. 27558, Fe, then Mayor of the Municipality of Taal, Batangas, taking advantage of her official position? through manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence, caused undue injury to the Municipality of Taal, to the government as a whole and to public interest, at the same time, gave unwarranted benefit to herself by reimbursing, collecting and appropriating the total amount of P170,987.66 representing the expenses she incurred during her unauthorized and illegal travels to Manila.
Librado and Fe claimed that the purchases of medicines in question were covered by the exceptions allowing certain purchases without public bidding. These purchases conform with the exceptions pertaining to emergency purchases that were made directly from manufacturers or exclusive distributor of Philippine-manufactured drugs. Leonor, on the other hand, explained that his participation in these transactions was only by virtue of the request of DLI, his former employer, with respect to the collection of payments. Leonor clarified that he had no financial or material interest in these transactions and neither was his office charged with the grant of licenses or permits or concessions.
As to the charge of illegal reimbursements of travel expenses, Librado and Fe claimed that these were not questionable considering that they were supported with bills and receipts and certifications attesting that their travels were absolutely necessary. Moreover, they claimed that they secured the verbal permission of the governor before every travel and although late, they were able to secure a written permission from the governor after the travels.
On November 19, 2009, the Sandiganbayan (4th Division) rendered its Decision finding Librado and Fe guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Leonor was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
ACCORDINGLY, accused Librado Cabrera and Fe Cabrera are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Republic Act 3019, Section 3(e) and are sentenced to suffer in prison the penalty of 6 years 1 month to 10 years for each charge as follows:
1) Accused Librado Cabrera for the charges in Criminal Case Nos. 27555 and 27556 2) Accused Fe Cabrera for the charges in Criminal Case Nos. 27557and 27558
with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding any public office. Accused Librado Cabrera and accused Fe Cabrera are directed to reimburse the Municipality of Taal, Batangas the amounts of [Php]27,651.83 and [Php] 170,987.66 respectively[,] representing the disbursed amounts for their unauthorized travels.
For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused Luther H. Leonor beyond reasonable doubt, he is ACQUITTED.
Costs against accused Librado Cabrera and Fe Cabrera.
SO ORDERED.4
SEC. 3 Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or [gross] inexcusable negligence; and
3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.10
x x x. There is "manifest partiality" when there is clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.12 (Citations omitted)
SEC. 356. General Rule in Procurement or Disposal. — Except as otherwise provided herein, acquisition of supplies by local government units shall be through competitive public bidding. x x x.
SEC. 366. Procurement Without Public Bidding. – Procurement of supplies may be made without the benefit of public bidding under any of the following modes:
(a) Personal canvass of responsible merchants; (b) Emergency purchase; (c) Negotiated purchase; (d) Direct purchase from manufacturers or exclusive distributors; and (e) Purchase from other government entities.
ART. 437. Procurement Without Public Bidding. – The procurement of supplies may be made without the benefit of public bidding under any of the following modes:
x x x x
(b) Emergency Purchase —
(1) In cases of emergency where the need for the supplies is exceptionally urgent or absolutely indispensable and only to prevent imminent danger to, or loss of, life or property, LGUs may, through the local chief executive concerned, make emergency purchases or place repair orders, regardless of amount, without public bidding. Delivery of purchase orders or utilization of repair orders pursuant to this Article shall be made within ten (10) days after placement thereof. Immediately after the emergency purchase or repair order is made, the head of office or department making the emergency purchase or repair order shall draw a regular requisition to cover the same which shall contain the following:(2) The goods or services procured in case of emergency must be utilized or availed of within fifteen (15) days from the date of delivery or availability.
(i) Complete description of the supplies acquired or work done or to be performed; (ii) By whom furnished or executed; (iii) Date of placing the order and date and time of delivery or execution; (iv) Unit price and total contract price; (v) Brief and concise explanation of the circumstances why procurement was of such urgency that the same could not be done through regular course without involving danger to, or loss of, life or property; (vi) Certification of the provincial general services officer, city general services officer, municipal treasurer, or barangay treasurer, as the case may be, to the effect that the price paid or contracted for was the lowest at the time of procurement; and (vii) Certification of the local budget officer as to the existence of appropriations for the purpose, of the local accountant as to the obligation of the amount involved, and of the local treasurer as to availability of funds.
(3) Without prejudice to criminal prosecution under applicable laws, the local chief executive or the head of office making the procurement shall be administratively liable for any violation of the provisions on emergency purchase and shall be a ground for suspension or dismissal from service.
x x x x
(d) Procurement from Duly Licensed Manufacturers — Procurement of supplies or property may be made directly from duly licensed manufacturers in cases of supplies of Philippine manufacture or origin. The manufacturer must be able to present proof showing that it is a duly licensed manufacturer of the desired product.
In case there are two (2) or more known manufacturers of the required supplies or property, canvass of prices of the known manufacturers shall be conducted to obtain the lowest price for the same quality of said supplies or property.
The award for the procurement of supplies or property from duly licensed manufacturers shall be made by the committee on awards.
- As to petitioners' claim that the purchases were emergency purchases. - While Fe was able to show the Purchase Request23 dated August 25, 1998, issued by the Head of the Municipal Health Office, Dr. Adolfo Magistrado, the request was incomplete in details. There was likewise no Certification that at the time of the procurement, the price contracted for, was the lowest and that there was availability of funds as required by the IRR. No such purchase request was presented by Librado.
- As to petitioners' claim that they made direct purchase from DLI as it is a duly licensed manufacturer of medicines in the Philippines, such barren allegation is not sufficient. We cannot accept hook, line and sinker, the ruling of the Ombudsman that DLI is a duly licensed manufacturer of medicines. Courts, generally, do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings.24 There must be proof establishing that DLI is indeed a duly licensed manufacturer of medicines in the Philippines.
Neither did petitioners show that they conducted a canvass of prices in order to obtain the lowest of prices of the known manufacturers for the same quality of medicines needed. Petitioners conveniently skipped the requirement of canvass before making the purchases. Section 370 of the LGC imposes a duty that a canvass of the known manufacturers first be conducted before the purchase is made, so as to ensure that the local government would spend the lowest possible price for such purchase.25 Since petitioners are claiming exemption to the requirement of public bidding, the burden of proof lies upon them to show that there is no qualified manufacturer but DLI which could offer the best possible price for the government.
"[Unwarranted" means lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason. "Advantage" means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action. "Preference" signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another.30 (Citations omitted)
The further discovery that the procurements were made by the petitioners from DLI without them first ensuring that the local government would be acquiring the medicines at the lowest possible price is sufficient to negate any presumption of good faith, especially since such failure prima facie constitutes a contravention of the Local Government Code.32
SEC. 96. Permission to Leave Station. — (a) Provincial, city, municipal, and barangay appointive officials going on official travel shall apply and secure written permission from their respective local chief executives before departure. The application shall specify the reasons for such travel, and the permission shall be given or withheld based on considerations of public interest, financial capability of the local government unit concerned and urgency of the travel. Should the local chief executive concerned fail to act upon such application within four (4) working days from receipt thereof, it shall be deemed approved.
(b) Mayors of component cities and municipalities shall secure the permission of the governor concerned for any travel outside the province.
(c) Local government officials traveling abroad shall notify their respective sanggunian: Provided, That when the period of travel extends to more than three (3) months, during periods of emergency or crisis or when the travel involves the use of public funds, permission from the Office of the President shall be secured.
(d) Field officers of national agencies or offices assigned in provinces, cities, and municipalities shall not leave their official stations without giving prior written notice to the local chief executive concerned. Such notice shall state the duration of travel and the name of the officer whom he shall designate to act for and in his behalf during his absence. (Underscoring supplied).
The permissions were not secured before the travels were made, not even right after the travels. They were not also secured at the time the reimbursements of expenses were sought; permissions were not secured even at the time accused approved the disbursement vouchers for the claimed reimbursements.x x x. Subsequently, when a special audit was conducted in December 1999, these reimbursements were put in question. It was only on 14 December 2000 that a purported confirmation/consent was secured. At that point, the permission sought was already for the purpose of avoiding the liability from the violation that was already consummated.36
(k) Certification on, and Approval of, Vouchers — No money shall be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies to the existence of appropriation that has been legally made for the purpose, the local accountant has obligated said appropriation, and the local treasurer certifies to the availability of funds for the purpose. Vouchers and payrolls shall be certified to and approved by the head of the office or department who has administrative control of the fund concerned, as to validity, propriety, and legality of the claim involved. Except in cases of disbursements involving regularly recurring administrative expenses such as payrolls for regular or permanent employees, expenses for light, water, telephone and telegraph services, remittances to government creditor agencies such as the GSIS, SSS, LBP, DBP, National Printing Office, Procurement Service of the DBM and others, approval of the disbursement voucher by the local chief executive himself shall be required whenever local funds are disbursed. (Underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Jose R. Hernandez, with Associate Justices Gregory S. Ong and Roland B. Jurado, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-60 .
2 Id. at 61-68.
3 Id. at 70-72, 73-75, 76-78 and 79-81.
4 Id. at 58-59.
5 Id. at 67.
6 Id. at 12.
7 Id. at 21.
8 Id.
9 484 Phil. 350 (2004), citing [Ingco] v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112584, May 23, 1977, 272 SCRA 563, 574.
10 Id. at 360.
11Abubakar v. People, G.R. Nos. 202408, 202409 & 202412, June 27, 2018.
12Plameras v. People, 717 Phil. 303, 321 (2013).
13Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 9, at 360.
14Abubakar v. People, supra note 11.
15Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, 308 Phil. 660, 694 (1994)
16 Supra note 11.
17Manila International Airport Authority v. Olongapo Maintenance Services, Inc., 567 Phil. 255, 259 (2008).
18 Id.
19Abubakar v. People, supra note 11.
20Rollo, pp. 115-118.
21Cabrera v. Hon. Marcelo, 487 Phil. 427, 444 (2004).
22 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 270 – PRESCRIBING THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991. Approved February 21, 1992.
23Rollo, p. 119.
24Bongato v. Spouses Malvar, 436 Phil. 109, 117 (2002).
25Cabrera v. Hon. Marcelo, supra note 21, at 443.
26Manila International Airport Authority v. Olongapo Maintenance Services, Inc., supra note 17, at 259.
27Rivera v. People, 749 Phil. 124, 145 (2014).
28Manila International Airport Authority v. Olongapo Maintenance Services, Inc., supra note 17.
29Abubakar v. People, supra note 11.
30Sison v. People, 628 Phil. 573, 585 (2010).
31Manila International Airport Authority v. Mabunay, 379 Phil. 833, 844 (2000).
32Cabrera v. Hon. Marcelo, supra note 21, at 445.
33 Republic Act No. 7160, October 10, 1991.
34Froelich & Kuttner v. Collector of Customs, 18 Phil. 461, 480 (1911), citing Sutherland on Statutory Construction, Chap. 255.
35 Id.
36Rollo, pp. 51-52.
37 Supra note 22.
39Rollo,p.51.
40 Id. at 56.
38 See also: Field Investigation Unit-Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v. De Castro, G.R. No. 232666, June 20, 2018.
39Rollo, p. 51.
40 Id. at 56.
41Sison v. People, supra note 30, at 586.
42Abubakar v. People, supra note 11.
43 Id.
43 Republic Act No. 3019, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 1, August 17, 1960.