129. Sison v.

People
Mar. 9, 2010
Corona, J.
Digest by Gabe
Topic and Provisions:
Short Version:
Sison was the municipal mayor of Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro. He caused
the purchase of a land cruiser, tires, a generator, construction materials and
a computer without public bidding, through personal canvass. He was
charged and convicted of a violation of RA 3019.
The SC denied his appeal. While personal canvass is allowed by the LGC, it
must be in accordance with the commensurate restrictions. Having failed to
follow these guidelines, Sison is liable.
Facts:
Rolando Sison was municipal mayor of Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro. At a
post-audit investigation, it was revealed that no public bidding was
conducted for the purchase of a Toyota Land Cruiser, cement, a generator,
construction materials, Desert Dueler tires, and a computer. There were
also irregularities in the documents supporting these purchases.
Thus, Sison and his municipal treasurer Rigoberto de Jesus were
indicted before the SB for seven counts of violations of RA 3019, Sec. 3(e).
He was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment from 6y and 1 mm to
10 years, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office. Hence
this appeal.
Petitioner Sison:
1. His guilt wasnt proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. While there was no public bidding conducted, he did conduct a
personal canvass, in line with the LGC, because all the dealers of the
items were based in Manila. It was therefore useless to invite bidders
since no one would bid anyway.
3. Further, no injury to the government was proven.
4. He was only following the established practice of his predecessors.

Respondent People of the Philippines:

1. No public bidding was committed, in violation of RA 7160. Thus, Sison
is liable for a corrupt practice, in that he gave a private party an
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, because the suppliers
were awarded procurement contracts without the benefit of a fair
system of determining the best possible price for the government.
2. No injury to the government is required so long as an undue
advantage was given.
3. Past illegal practices cannot justify the commission of corrupt acts.
Issue:
WON Sison is criminally liable. (Yes)
Ratio:
The LGC provides that, as a rule, acquisitions of supplies by LGUs shall be
through competitive bidding. The exceptions are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Personal Canvass of responsible merchants

Emergency purchase
Negotiated purchase
Direct purchase from manufacturers or exclusive distributors, and
Purchase from other government entities.

In these cases, no public bidding is necessary. However, while personal

canvass is an exception to the rule on public bidding, it is subject to
restrictions laid down in Sec. 367 of the LGC.
First, procurement may only be effected after a canvass of at least 3
responsible suppliers. Second, the canvass must be by a committee of 3.
Third, the award shall be decided by the Committee on Awards. Fourth, the
purchases shall not exceed specified amounts. In the case of a 4th-class
municipality like Calintaan, the limit is P20,000 a month.
Here, the canvass was carried out by Sison alone, without the
participation of the municipal accountant and municipal treasurer, who, by
law, are the other members of the Committee on Awards. Further, as the
local executive, the LGC requires the participation of another member of
the Sangguniang Bayan if Sison was involved in the canvassing. That
prohibition is meant to prevent conflicts of interest.

The amount spent was far more than P20,000. Thus, the private
canvassing was void. As a result, Sison is guilty of a violation of Sec. 3(e) of
RA 3019. While it was not proven that he caused undue injury to the
government, that section provides for 2 violations of the lawcausing
undue injury to the government and giving any private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference int eh discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions.
To be found guilty under that provision, the ff. elements must concur:
1. The offender is a public officer
2. The act was done in the discharge of the public officers official,
administrative, or judicial functions
3. The act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
gross inexcusable negligence, and
4. The public officer caused undue injury to any party, including the
government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or
preference.
The only controverted elements here are 3 and 4. Here, Sison was
grossly negligent. He pre-signed forms sent to the suppliers. As to his
defense that he was merely following the practice of his predecessors, this
is unacceptable. It was an admission of mindless disregard for the law in a
tradition of illegality. As chief executive, he should be first to follow the law;
instead, he was the first one to break it.
Finally, unwarranted benefit was given to the suppliers, even without
damage to the government. The fact that he failed to follow the
requirements of RA 7160 on personal canvass proves such an unwarranted
benefit as the suppliers were awarded the procurement contract without
the benefit of a fair system in determining the best possible price for the
government. They were able to profit from the transactions without proof
that their prices were the most beneficial to the government.
Petition denied. Sison is guilty.