Quibal v. Sandiganbayan | 244 scra 224



Facts: This is a petition for review of a decision of the Sandiganbayan. In convicting the petitioner of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and corrupt practices Act). The municipality of Palapag Northern Samar, by its OIC Vice-mayor Teodoro Bello entered into a contract with the Flores Construction Company, represented by Eduardo Guevarra, for construction of the municipal public market. The period of completion of the project was 100 days. The price was P652,562.60. The petitioner issued (4) PNB checks in favor of the contractor in total amount of P650,000.00. However, sometime in June 1988, after receipt of said payments, the contractor abandoned the project. The COA special Audit Team inspected the progress of the construction of the Palapag Municipal Market. It discovered several irregularities. It found out that only about 36.24% of the construction of the municipal market has been completed despite the lapse of the contract period of 100 days. The actual cost of the finished work on the project was only p301,745.65. Unfinished work, as evaluated, cost, P348,235.35. It was also established that the contractor had non-completion of the building. Provincial Auditor submitted an inspection report to the COA Regional Director recommending appropriate legal action be taken against the petitioner. The Ombudsman informed the Mayor of the charges filed against him by COA. After trial, the Sandiganbayan promulgated decision convicting petitioner of the crime charged.

Issue: WON the required proof for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was complied.

Holding: Yes. The required proof was: 1) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative or official function or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; 2) the public officer committed the prohibited and during the performance of his official duty or in relation to his public position; 3) the public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 4) hid action caused undue injury to the Government or any private party or gave any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such parties. The construction of the municipal market should have been finished after the agreed period which is 100 days (March 7, 1988). However, at the time of the Audit (Aug. 1988), only 36.24% of the construction has been completed. Yet, out of the contract price of P652,562.60, petitioner already paid the contactor a total of P650,000.00. In so doing, petitioner disregarded the provision in the contract that payment should be based on the percentage of work accomplishment. Moreover, the contract provided that in case of delay in the completion of the project, the contractor shall be liable for liquidated damages at the rate of 1/10 or 1% of the contract price per day of delay. By their acts, petitioner clearly acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith relative to the construction of the municipal market. Petitioner acts and omissions demonstrated an utter lack of care in enforcing the contract of the construction. It cannot be successfully argued that the acts and omissions of petitioner did not cause damage or injury to the municipal government, because the construction was completed only at the end of December 1989 when it should have been finished by March 1988. This unnecessary delay of almost 2 years cause considerable monetary loss to the municipal government in the form of monthly rentals.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more