Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Palattao, The Absence of A Public Bidding May Mean That The Government Was Not Able To Secure The Lowest

    Uploaded by

    sophia
    The Sandiganbayan found the city mayor and other public officials of Paranaque City guilty of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for an overpriced procurement of cleaning supplies without following bidding requirements. However, the Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding that while the failure to conduct public bidding could allow graft, the prosecution did not sufficiently prove that the contract was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government, which is required for a Section 3(g) violation. The Court found that overpricing alone was not enough and that the disadvantage must be clearly shown to be both manifest and gross.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Palattao, The Absence of A Public Bidding May Mean That The Government Was Not Able To Secure The Lowest

    Uploaded by

    sophia
    32 views2 pages
    The Sandiganbayan found the city mayor and other public officials of Paranaque City guilty of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for an overpriced procurement of cleaning supplies without following bidding requirements. However, the Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding that while the failure to conduct public bidding could allow graft, the prosecution did not sufficiently prove that the contract was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government, which is required for a Section 3(g) violation. The Court found that overpricing alone was not enough and that the disadvantage must be clearly shown to be both manifest and gross.

    Original Title

    6 digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Sandiganbayan found the city mayor and other public officials of Paranaque City guilty of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for an overpriced procurement of cleaning supplies without following bidding requirements. However, the Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding that while the failure to conduct public bidding could allow graft, the prosecution did not sufficiently prove that the contract was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government, which is required for a Section 3(g) violation. The Court found that overpricing alone was not enough and that the disadvantage must be clearly shown to be both manifest and gross.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views2 pages

    Palattao, The Absence of A Public Bidding May Mean That The Government Was Not Able To Secure The Lowest

    Uploaded by

    sophia
    The Sandiganbayan found the city mayor and other public officials of Paranaque City guilty of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for an overpriced procurement of cleaning supplies without following bidding requirements. However, the Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding that while the failure to conduct public bidding could allow graft, the prosecution did not sufficiently prove that the contract was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government, which is required for a Section 3(g) violation. The Court found that overpricing alone was not enough and that the disadvantage must be clearly shown to be both manifest and gross.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GR. Nos. 181999 & 182001-04. September 2, 2009.

    *
    PEOPLE VS CAUNAN

    DOCTRINE: For a charge under Section 3(g) to prosper, the following elements must be present: (1)
    that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the
    government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
    government.

    Facts: The five (5) Informations were filed based on the findings of the Commission on Audit (COA)
    Special Audit Team that there was overpricing in certain purchase transactions of Parañaque City. It was
    alleged that the accused Public Officers JOEY P. MARQUEZ, a high ranking public official, being the
    City Mayor of Parañaque City and Chairman, Committee on Awards, together with members of the
    aforesaid committee, namely: SILVESTRE DE LEON, being then the City Treasurer, MARILOU
    TANAEL, the City Accountant (SG 26), FLOCERFIDA M. BABIDA, the City Budget officer (SG
    26), OFELIA C. CAUNAN, the OIC General Services office (SG 26) and AILYN ROMEA, the Head
    Staff, Office of the Mayor (SG 26), purchased 55,432 pieces of “walis ting-ting” at 25.00 or 15.00 per
    piece without complying with the Commission on Audit (COA) Rules and Regulations and other
    requirements on procurement and Public Bidding, resulting to an overpriced amount totalling to P
    462,708.00 , thus causing damage and prejudice to the government.

    Sandiganbayan finding Marquez and Caunan guilty of violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act (R.A.)
    No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

    Issue: Whether or not petitioners are guilty of violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019

    Held: No. For a charge under Section 3(g) to prosper, the following elements must be present: (1) that
    the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the
    government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
    government.17
    The presence of the first two elements of the crime is not disputed. Hence, the threshold question we
    should resolve is whether the walis tingting purchase contracts were grossly and manifestly injurious or
    disadvantageous to the government.
    We agree with petitioners that the fact of overpricing is embedded in the third criminal element of
    Section 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019. Given the factual milieu of this case, the subject contracts would be
    grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government if characterized by an overpriced procurement.
    However, the gross and manifest disadvantage to the government was not sufficiently shown because the
    conclusion of overpricing was erroneous since it was not also adequately proven. Thus, we grant the
    petitions.

    We are not unmindful of the fact that petitioners failed to conduct the requisite public bidding for the
    questioned procurements. However, the lack of public bidding alone does not automatically equate to a
    manifest and gross disadvantage to the government. As we had occasion to declare in Nava v.
    Palattao, the absence of a public bidding may mean that the government was not able to secure the lowest
    bargain in its favor and may open the door to graft and corruption. However, this does not satisfy the third
    element of the offense charged, because the law requires that the disadvantage must be manifest and
    gross. After all, penal laws are strictly construed against the government.

    You might also like