4/17/2017 G.R. No.

160211

FIRSTDIVISION


VENANCIOR.NAVA,G.R.No.160211
Petitioner,
Present:

PANGANIBAN,CJ,Chairperson,
versusYNARESSANTIAGO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,SR.,and
CHICONAZARIO,JJ
TheHonorableJustices
RODOLFOG.PALATTAO,
GREGORYS.ONG,and
MA.CRISTINAG.CORTEZ
ESTRADAasMembersofthe
SandiganbayansFourthDivision,and
thePEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Promulgated:
Respondents.August28,2006
xx


DECISION


PANGANIBAN,CJ:


Ameticulousreviewoftherecordsandtheevidenceestablishestheguiltoftheaccused
beyondreasonabledoubt.Clearly,theprosecutionwasabletoprovealltheelementsof
thecrimecharged.Hence,theconvictionofpetitionerisinevitable.

TheCase

[1]
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 1/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

[2]
assailing the June 2, 2003 Decision and September 29, 2003 Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 23627. The dispositive portion of the challenged
Decisionreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered convicting accused
VENANCIO NAVA Y RODRIGUEZ of the crime of violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt
Practices Act particularly Section 3(g) thereof, or entering on behalf of government in any
contractortransactionmanifestlyandgrosslydisadvantageoustothesamewhetherornotthe
pubic officer profited or will profit thereby. In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating
circumstances,applyingtheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,accusedisherebysentencedtosuffer
thepenaltyofimprisonmentofsix(6)years,andone(1)dayasminimumtotwelve(12)years
and one (1) day as maximum and to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office.
Accused Nava is further ordered to pay the government the amount of P380,013.60 which it
sufferedbywayofdamagesbecauseoftheunlawfulactoromissioncommittedbytheherein
accusedVenancioNava.

Fromthenarrationoffacts,therehardlyappearsanycircumstancethatwouldsuggestthe
existenceofconspiracyamongtheotheraccusedinthecommissionofthecrime.

Thusintheabsenceofconspiracyinthecommissionofthecrimecomplainedofandas
thehereinotheraccusedonlyactedupontheordersofaccusedVenancioNava,intheabsenceof
any criminal intent on their part to violate the law, the acts of the remaining accused are not
consideredcorruptpracticescommittedintheperformanceoftheirdutiesaspublicofficersand
consequently, accused AJATIL JAIRAL Y PONGCA, ROSALINDA MERKA Y GUANZON
&JOSEPHVENTURAYABADareherebyconsideredinnocentofthecrimechargedandare
[3]
herebyacquitted.


TheassailedResolutiondatedSeptember29,2003,deniedreconsideration.

TheFacts


TheSandiganbayannarratedthefactsofthiscaseasfollows:

ThecomplaintinvolvingthehereinaccusedwasinitiatedbytheCOA,RegionXI,DavaoCity,
which resulted from an audit conducted by a team which was created by the COA Regional
OfficeperCOARegionalAssignmentOrderNo.9174datedJanuary8,1991.Theobjectiveof

theteam[was]toconductanauditofthe9.36millionallotmentwhichwasreleasedin1990by
theDECS,RegionXItoitsDivisionOffices.

IntheAuditReport,theamountofP603,265.00wasshowntohavebeenreleasedtotheDECS
DivisionofDavaodelSurfordistributiontothenewlynationalizedhighschoolslocatedwithin
theregion.ThroughtheinitiativeofaccusedVenancioNava,ameetingwascalledamonghis
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 2/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
theregion.ThroughtheinitiativeofaccusedVenancioNava,ameetingwascalledamonghis
seven(7)schoolsdivisionsuperintendentswhomhepersuadedtousethemoneyorallotment
forthepurchaseofScienceLaboratoryToolsandDevices(SLTD).Inotherwords,insteadof
referringtheallotmenttotheonehundredfiftyfive(155)headsofthenationalizedhighschools
for the improvement of their facilities, accused Nava succeeded in persuading his seven (7)
schools division superintendents to use the allotment for the purchase of science education
facilitiesforthecalendaryear1990.

Inthepurchaseoftheschoolmaterials,thelawprovidesthatthesameshallbedonethrougha
publicbiddingpursuanttoCircularNo.8555,seriesof1985.Butintheinstantcase,evidence
showsthataccusedNavapersuadedhisseven(7)schoolsdivisionsuperintendentstoignorethe
circularasallegedlytimewasoftheessenceinmakingthepurchasesandifnotdonebeforethe
calendaryear1990,thefundsallottedwillrevertbacktothegeneralfund.

In the hurried purchase of SLTDs, the provision on the conduct of a public bidding was not
followed. Instead the purchase was done through negotiation. Evidence shows that the items
werepurchasedfromJovensTrading,abusinessestablishmentwithprincipaladdressatTayug,
Pangasinan D[I]mplacable Enterprise with principal business address at 115 West Capitol
Drive, Pasig, Metro Manila and from Evelyn Miranda of 1242 Oroqueta Street, Sta. Cruz,
Manila. As disclosed by the audit report, the prices of the [SLTDs] as purchased from the
abovenamedsellersexceededtheprevailingmarketpricerangingfrom56%to1,175%based
onthemathematicalcomputationdonebytheCOAauditteam.Thereportconcludedthatthe
governmentlostP380,013.60.Thattheinjurytothegovernmentasquantifiedwastheresultof
the nonobservance by the accused of the COA rules on public bidding and DECS Order No.
[4]
100suspendingthepurchasesof[SLTDs].



TheCommissiononAudit(COA)Reportrecommendedthefilingofcriminaland
administrativechargesagainstthepersonsliable,includingpetitioner,beforetheOffice
oftheOmbudsmanMindanao.

[5]
PetitionerwassubsequentlychargedinanInformation filedonApril8,1997,worded
asfollows:

ThatonorabouttheperiodbetweenNovembertoDecember1990,andforsometimeprioror
subsequent thereto, in Digos, Davao Del Sur and/or Davao City, Philippines and within the
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theaccusedVenancioR.Nava(DECSRegionXIDirector)
andAjatilJairal(DivisionSuperintendent,DECS,DavaodelSur),bothhigh[]rankingofficials
and Rosalinda Merka, and Teodora Indin (Administrative Officer and Assistant Division
Superintendent, respectively of DECSDivision of Davao Del Sur), all low ranking officials,
whileinthedischargeoftheirrespectiveofficialfunctions,committingtheoffenseinrelationto
theirofficeandwithgraveabuse[of]authority,connivingandconfederatingwithoneanother,
didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyenter,onbehalfofthegovernment,into
transactions with DImplacable Enterprise and Jovens Trading, respectively, represented by
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 3/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

accused Antonio S. Tan and Evelyn Miranda and Joseph Ventura for the purchase of Science
LaboratoryToolsandDevices(SLTD)intendedforusebythepublichighschoolsinthearea
amounting to [P603,265.00], Philippine currency, without the requisite public bidding and in
violationofDECSOrderNo.100,Seriesof1990,whichtransactioninvolvedanoverpricein
the amount of P380,013.60 and thus, is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the
[6]
government.



SpecialProsecutionOfficerIIEvelynT.LuceroAgcaoilirecommendedthedismissalof
theforegoingInformationontheground,amongothers,thattherewasnoprobablecause.
Shearguedthatonlyestimatesweremadetoshowthediscrepancyofpricesinsteadofa
[7]
comparativelistingonanitemtoitembasis. Therecommendationwasdisapproved,
however,bythenOmbudsmanAnianoA.Desierto.

RulingoftheSandiganbayan

Afterduetrial,onlypetitionerwasconvicted,whilealltheotheraccusedwereacquitted.
[8]

Petitioner was found guilty of violating Section 3(g) of the AntiGraft and Corrupt
Practices Act, or entering on behalf of the government any contract or transaction

manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the latter, whether or not the public officer
profitedorwouldprofitthereby.

TheSandiganbayan(SBN)saidthat,inthepurchaseoftheScienceLaboratoryToolsand
Devices(SLTDs),petitionerhadnotconductedapublicbiddinginaccordancewithCOA
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 4/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

CircularNo.8555A.As a result, the prices of the SLTDs, as purchased, exceeded the

prevailing market price from 56 percent to 1,175 percent, based on the mathematical
[9]
computations of the COA team. In his defense, petitioner had argued that the said
COA Circular was merely directory, not mandatory. Further, the purchases in question
[10]
hadbeendoneintheinterestofpublicservice.

TheSandiganbayandidnotgivecredencetotheforegoingdefensesraisedbypetitioner.
Onthecontrary,itfoundtheevidenceadducedbypetitionerscoaccused,Superintendent
AjatilJairal,tobeenlightening,manifestinganintricatewebofdeceitspunbypetitioner
[11]
andinvolvingalltheothersuperintendentsintheprocess.

Thegraftcourtdidnotaccepttheclaimofpetitionerthathesignedthechecksonly
after the other signatories had already signed them. The evidence showed that blank
PhilippineNationalBank(PNB)checkshadbeenreceivedbyNilaE.Chavez,aclerkin
theregionaloffice,forpetitionerssignature.The
Sandiganbayan opined that the evidence amply supported Jairals testimony that the
questioned transactions had emanated from the regional office, as in fact, all the
documents pertinent to the transaction had already been prepared and signed by

petitioner when the meeting with the superintendents was called sometime in August
[12]
1990.

In that meeting, the superintendents were given prepared documents like the
[13]
Purchase Orders and vouchers, together with the justification. This circumstance
prompted Jairal to conduct his own canvass. The Sandiganbayan held that this act was
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 5/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
prompted Jairal to conduct his own canvass. The Sandiganbayan held that this act was
suggestiveofthegoodfaithofJairal,therebynegatinganyclaimofconspiracywiththe
othercoaccusedand,inparticular,petitioner.
InitsassailedResolution,theSBNdeniedpetitionersMotionforReconsideration.Itheldthat
the series of acts culminating in the questioned transactions constituted violations of
DepartmentofEducation,CultureandSports(DECS)OrderNo.100andCOACircularNo.
8555A.Those acts, ruled the SBN, sufficiently established that the contract or transaction
enteredintowasmanifestlyorgrosslydisadvantageoustothegovernment.

[14]
Hence,thisPetition.

TheIssues

Petitionerraisesthefollowingissuesforourconsideration:

I.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackofor
excessofjurisdictioninupholdingthefindingsoftheSpecialAuditTeamthatirregularly
conducted the audit beyond the authorized period and which team falsified the Special
AuditReport.

II.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackofor
excess of jurisdiction in upholding the findings in the special audit report where the
SpecialAuditTeamegregiouslyfailedtocomplywiththeminimumstandardssetbythe
SupremeCourtandadoptedbytheCommissiononAuditinviolationofpetitionersright
todueprocess,andwhichreportsuppressedevidencefavorabletothepetitioner.

III.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackofor
excess of jurisdiction in upholding the findings in the Special Audit Report considering
that none of the allegedly overpriced items were canvassed or purchased by the Special
AuditTeamsuchthatthereisnocompetentevidencefromwhichtodeterminethatthere
wasanoverpriceandthatthetransactionwasmanifestlyandgrosslydisadvantageousto
thegovernment.

IV.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackofor
excessofjurisdictioninfindingthattherewasanoverpricewherenoneofthepricesof
the questioned items exceeded the amount set by the Department of Budget and
Management.

V.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackofor
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 6/27
4/17/2017 V.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackofor
G.R. No. 160211

excess of jurisdiction in selectively considering the findings in the decision in

Administrative Case No. XI91088 and failing to consider the findings thereon that
petitioner was justified in undertaking a negotiated purchase and that there was no
overpricing.

VI.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackofor
excessofjurisdictioninselectivelyconsideringthefindingsofXI91088andfailingto
consider the findings thereon that petitioner was justified in undertaking a negotiated
purchase, there was no overpricing, and that the purchases did not violate DECS Order
No.100.

VII.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackof
or excess of jurisdiction in failing to absolve the petitioner where conspiracy was not
provenandthesupplierswhobenefitedfromtheallegedoverpricingwereacquitted.

VIII.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackof
orexcessofjurisdictioninadmittinginevidenceandgivingprobativevaluetoExhibit8
theexistenceandcontentsofwhicharefictitious.

IX.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackofor
excess of jurisdiction in giving credence to the selfserving and perjurious testimony of
coaccusedAjatilJairalthatthequestionedtransactionsemanatedfromtheregionaloffice
[in spite] of the documentary evidence and the testimony of the accused supplier which
prove that the transaction emanated from the division office of Digos headed by co
accusedAjatilJairal.

X.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackofor
excess of jurisdiction in finding that the petitioner entered into a transaction that was
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government where the evidence clearly
established that the questioned transactions were entered into by the division office of
DigosthroughcoaccusedAjatilJairal.

XI.Whetherthepublicrespondentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoalackofor
excess of jurisdiction in convicting the petitioner in the absence of proof beyond
[15]
reasonabledoubt.



All these issues basically refer to the question of whether the Sandiganbayan
committed reversible errors (not grave abuse of discretion) in finding petitioner guilty
beyondreasonabledoubtofviolationofSection3(g),RepublicActNo.3019.

TheCourtsRuling


ThePetitionhasnomerit.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 7/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

ProceduralIssue:
ProprietyofCertiorari


Attheoutset,itmustbestressedthattocontesttheSandiganbayansDecisionand
ResolutiononJune2,2003andSeptember29,2003,respectively,petitionershouldhave
filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not the present Petition for
[16]
CertiorariunderRule65.Section7ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1606, asamendedby
[17]
Republic Act No. 8249, provides that [d]ecisions and final orders of the
Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorariraisingpurequestionsoflawinaccordancewithRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court likewise provides that [a] party desiring to
appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the x x x
Sandiganbayan x x x whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a

verified petition for review on certiorari.The petition shall raise only questions of law
whichmustbedistinctlysetforth.

BasicistheprinciplethatwhenRule45isavailable,recourseunderRule65cannot
[18]
beallowedeitherasanaddonorasasubstituteforappeal. Thespecialcivilaction
for certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, when the latter remedy is
[19]
available.

This Court has consistently ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 lies
only when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 8/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
only when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
[20]
ordinarycourseoflaw. Aremedyisconsideredplain,speedyandadequateifitwill
promptlyrelievethepetitionerfromtheinjuriouseffectsofthejudgmentandtheactsof
[21]
the lower court or agency or as in this case, the Sandiganbayan. Since the assailed
DecisionandResolutionweredispositionsonthemerits,andtheSandiganbayanhadno
remaining issue to resolve, an appeal would have been the plain, speedy and adequate
remedyforpetitioner.

To be sure, the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not
[22]
alternative or successive. For this procedural lapse, the Petition should have been
dismissedoutright.
Nonetheless,inasmuchasitwasfiledwithinthe15dayperiodprovidedunderRule45,
the Court treated it as a petition for review (not certiorari) under Rule 45 in order to

accord substantial justice to the parties. Thus, it was given due course and the Court
requiredthepartiestofiletheirMemoranda.


MainIssue:
SufficiencyofEvidence



PetitionerarguesthattheSandiganbayanerredinconvictinghim,becausethepieces
of evidence to support the charges were not convincing. Specifically, he submits the
followingdetailedargumentation:

1. the Special Audit Report was fraudulent, incomplete, irregular, inaccurate, illicit and
suppressedevidenceinfavorofthePetitioner

2.therewasnocompetentevidencetodeterminetheoverpriceasnoneofthesamplessecuredby
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 9/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
2.therewasnocompetentevidencetodeterminetheoverpriceasnoneofthesamplessecuredby
the audit team from the Division of Davao del Sur were canvassed or purchased by the
auditteam

3.theallegedlyoverpriceditemsdidnotexceedtheamountsetbytheDepartmentofBudgetand
Management

4.thedecisioninanadministrativeinvestigationwereselectivelyliftedoutofcontext

5.theadministrativefindingsthatPetitionerwasjustifiedinundertakinganegotiatedpurchase,
thattherewasnooverpricing,andthatthepurchasesdidnotviolateDECSOrderNo.100
weredisregarded

6.Exhibit8,thecontentsofwhicharefictitious,wasadmittedinevidenceandgivenprobative
value

7.Thesupplierswhobenefitedfromthetransactionswereacquitted,alongwiththeotheraccused
whodirectlyparticipatedinthequestionedtransactionsand

8. The selfserving and perjuryridden statements of coaccused Jairal were given credence
[23]
despitedocumentaryandtestimonialevidencetothecontrary.

PetitionerfurtheraversthatthefindingsoffactintheDecisiondatedOctober21,1996in
[24]
DECSAdministrativeCaseNo.XI91088 deniedanyoverpricingandjustifiedthe
[25]
negotiatedpurchasesinlieuofapublicbidding. Sincetherewasnooverpricingand
sincehewasjustifiedinundertakingthenegotiatedpurchase,petitionersubmitsthathe
cannotbeconvictedofviolatingSection3(g)ofRepublicActNo.3019.
ValidityofAudit

The principal evidence presented during trial was the COA Special Audit Report
(COAReport).TheCOAistheagencyspecificallygiventhepower,authorityandduty
to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
[26]
expendituresorusesoffundandpropertyownedbyorpertainingtothegovernment.
It has the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination and to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 10/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

[27]
establishtherequiredtechniquesandmethods.

Thus,COAsfindingsareaccordednotonlyrespectbutalsofinality,whentheyare
[28]
nottaintedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion. Onlyuponaclearshowingofgraveabuse
of discretion may the courts set aside decisions of government agencies entrusted with
theregulationofactivitiescomingundertheirspecialtechnicalknowledgeandtraining.
[29]
In this case, the SBN correctly accorded credence to the COA Report.As will be
shownlater,theReportcanwithstandlegalscrutiny.

Initially, petitioner faults the audit team for conducting the investigation beyond the
twentyonedayperiodstatedintheCOARegionalOfficeAssignmentOrderNo.91174
dated January 8, 1991. But this delay by itself did not destroy the credibility of the
Report.Neitherwasitsufficienttoconstitutefraudorindicatebadfaithonthepartofthe
auditteam.Indeed,intheconductofanaudit,thelengthoftimetheactualexamination
occursisdependentuponthedocumentsinvolved.Ifthedocumentsarevoluminous,then
[30]
itnecessarilyfollowsthatmoretimewouldbeneeded. Whatisimportantisthatthe
findingsoftheauditshouldbesufficientlysupportedbyevidence.

Petitioneralsoimputesfraudtotheauditteamformakingitappearthattheitems
releasedbytheDivisionOfficeofDavaoDelSuron21February1991werecompared
with and became the basis for the purchase of exactly the same items on 20 February
[31]
1991.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 11/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

Thediscrepancyregardingthedatewhenthesamplesweretakenandthedateofthe
purchaseofthesameitemsforcomparisonwasnotverymaterial.Thediscrepancyperse
did not constitute fraud in the absence of ill motive. We agree with respondents in their
claimofclericalinadvertence.Weaccepttheirexplanationthatthewrongdatewaswritten
bythesupplierconcernedwhentheitemswereboughtforcomparison.Anyway,thelogical
sequenceofeventswasclearlyindicatedintheCOAReport:

1.5.1. Obtained samples of each laboratory tools and devices purchased by the Division of
DavaodelSur,MemorandumReceiptscoveringallthesampleswereissuedbytheagencyto
theauditteamandaremarkedasExhibits1.2and3ofthisReport.
1.5.2.BoughtandpresentedthesesamplestoreputablebusinessestablishmentsinDavao
City like Mercury Drug Store, Berovan Marketing Incorporated and [A]llied Medical
EquipmentandSupplyCorporation(AMESCO)wheretheseitemsarealsoavailable,forprice
verification.

1.5.3. Available items which were exactly the same as the samples presented were purchased
fromAMESCOandBerovanMarketingIncorporated,thebusinessestablishmentswhichquoted
the lowest prices. Official receipts were issued by the AMESCO and Berovan Marketing
[32]
IncorporatedwhichareheretomarkedasExhibits4,5,6and7respectively.

[33]
TheCOAteamthentabulatedtheresultsasfollows:
Recanvassed %of Total
Purchased Price+10% Over Quantity Amountof
Item UnitCost Allow. Difference pricing Purchased Overpricing
FlaskBrushmade
ofNylon P112.20 P8.80 P103.40 1,175% 400 P41,360.00
TestTubeGlass
Pyrex(18x50mm) 22.36 14.30 8.06 56% 350 2,821.00
Graduated
CylinderPyrex
(100ml) 713.00 159.50 553.50 347% 324 179,334.00
GlassSpiritBurner
(alcohollamp) 163.50 38.50 125.00 325% 144 18,000.00
SpringBalance
(12.5kg)Germany 551.00 93.50 457.50 489% 102 46,665.00
IronWireGauge 16.20 9.90 6.30 64% 47 296.10
BunsenBurner 701.00 90.75 610.25 672% 150 91,537.50
TotalP380,013.60

What is glaring is the discrepancy in prices. The tabulated figures are supported by
Exhibits E1, E2, E3, and E4, the Official Receipts evidencing the equipment
purchased by the audit team for purposes of comparison with those procured by
[34]
petitioner. The authenticity of these Exhibits is not disputed by petitioner. As the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 12/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
[34]
petitioner. The authenticity of these Exhibits is not disputed by petitioner. As the
SBNstatedinitsDecision,thefactofoverpricingasreflectedintheaforementioned
exhibits was testified to or identified by Laura S. Soriano, team leader of the audit
[35]
team. It is hornbook doctrine that the findings of the trial court are accorded great
weight, since it was able to observe the demeanor of witnesses firsthand and up close.
[36]
Intheabsenceofcontraryevidence,thesefindingsareconclusiveonthisCourt.

Itwasthereforeincumbentonpetitionertoprovethattheauditteamoranyofits
members thereof was so motivated by ill feelings against him that it came up with a
fraudulentreport.Sincehewasnotabletoshowanyevidencetothisend,hiscontention
as to the irregularity of the audit due to the discrepancy of the dates involved must
necessarilyfail.
An audit is conducted to determine whether the amounts allotted for certain
expenditureswerespentwisely,inkeepingwithofficialguidelinesandregulations.Itis
notawitchhunttoterrorizeaccountablepublicofficials.Thepresumptionisalwaysthat
[37]
officialdutyhasbeenregularlyperformed bothonthepartofthoseinvolvedwith
theexpenseallotmentbeingauditedandonthepartoftheauditteamunlessthereis
evidencetothecontrary.

DueProcess

[38]
PetitionerlikewiseinvokesArriolav.CommissiononAudit tosupporthisclaimthat
hisrighttodueprocesswasviolated.Inthatcase,thisCourtruledthatthedisallowance
made by the COA was not sufficiently supported by evidence, as it was based on
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 13/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

made by the COA was not sufficiently supported by evidence, as it was based on
undocumentedclaims.Moreover,inArriola,thedocumentsthatwereusedasbasisofthe
COADecisionwerenotshowntopetitioners,despitetheirrepeateddemandstoseethem.
Theyweredeniedaccesstotheactualcanvasssheetsorpricequotationsfromaccredited
suppliers.

As the present petitioner pointed out in his Memorandum, the foregoing jurisprudence
becamethebasisfortheCOAtoissueMemorandumOrderNo.97012datedMarch31,

1997,whichstates:

3.2Tofirmupthefindingstoareliabledegreeofcertainty,initialfindingsofoverpricingbased
onmarketpriceindicatorsmentionedinpa.2.1abovehavetobesupportedwithcanvasssheet
and/orpricequotationsindicating:

a)theidentitiesofthesuppliersorsellers
b) theavailabilityofstocksufficientinquantitytomeettherequirementsofthe
procuringagency
c) the specifications of the items which should match those involved in the
findingofoverpricing
d)thepurchase/contracttermsandconditionswhichshouldbethesameasthose
ofthequestionedtransaction



Petitioners reliance on Arriola is misplaced. First, that Decision, more so, the COA
Memorandum Order that was issued pursuant to the former, was promulgated after the
periodwhentheauditinthepresentcasewasconducted.NeitherArriolanortheCOA
MemorandumOrdercanbegivenanyretroactiveeffect.
Secondandmoreimportant,thecircumstancesinArriolaaredifferentfromthosein
thepresentcase.Intheearliercase,theCOAmerelyreferredtoacostcomparisonmade
bytheengineerofCOATechnicalServicesOffice(TSO),basedonunitcostsfurnished
bythePriceMonitoringDivisionoftheCOATSO.TheCOAevenrefusedtoshowthe
canvasssheetstothepetitioners,explainingthatthesourcedocumentwasconfidential.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 14/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

Inthepresentcase,theauditteamexaminedseveraldocumentsbeforetheyarrived
at their conclusion that the subject transactions were grossly disadvantageous to the
government.ThesedocumentswereincludedintheFormalOfferofEvidencesubmitted
[39]
totheSandiganbayan. Petitionerwaslikewisepresentedanopportunitytocontrovert

thefindingsoftheauditteamduringtheexitconferenceheldattheendoftheaudit,but
[40]
hefailedtodoso.

Further, the fact that only three canvass sheets/price quotations were presented by the
auditteamdoesnotbolsterpetitionersclaimthathisrighttodueprocesswasviolated.To
be sure, there is no rule stating that all price canvass sheets must be presented. It is
enoughthatthosethataremadethebasisofcomparisonbesubmittedforscrutinytothe
partiesbeingaudited.Indubitably,thesedocumentswereproperlysubmittedandtestified
to by the principal prosecution witness, Laura Soriano. Moreover, petitioner had ample
opportunitytocontrovertthem.

PublicBidding


Petitioneroscillatesbetweendenyingthathewasresponsiblefortheprocurementofthe
questioned SLTDs, on the one hand and, on the other, stating that the negotiated
purchasewasjustifiableunderthecircumstances.

Onhisdisavowalofresponsibilityforthequestionedprocurement,heclaimsthat
[41]
the transactions emanated from the Division Office of Digos headed by Jairal.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 15/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211 [41]
the transactions emanated from the Division Office of Digos headed by Jairal.
[42]
However,intheadministrativecase filedagainstpetitionerbeforetheDECS,itwas
[43]
establishedthathegavethegosignal thatpromptedthedivisionsuperintendentsto
procuretheSLTDsthroughnegotiatedpurchase.Thisfactisnotdisputedbypetitioner,
who quotes the same DECS Decision in stating that his acts were justifiable under the

circumstances then obtaining at that time and for reasons of efficient and prompt
[44]
distributionoftheSLTDstothehighschools.
In justifying the negotiated purchase without public bidding, petitioner claims that any
delayintheenrichmentofthemindsofthepublichighschoolstudentsofDavaodelSur
[45]
is detrimental and antithetical to public service. Although this reasoning is quite
laudable,therewasnothingpresentedtosubstantiateit.

ExecutiveOrderNo.301statesthegeneralrulethatnocontractforpublicservices
or for furnishing supplies, materials and equipment to the government or any of its
branches, agencies or instrumentalities may be renewed or entered into without public
bidding. The rule however, is not without exceptions.Specifically, negotiated contracts
maybeenteredintounderanyofthefollowingcircumstances:

a.Wheneverthesuppliesareurgentlyneededtomeetanemergencywhichmayinvolvetheloss
of,ordangerto,lifeand/orproperty
b.Wheneverthesuppliesaretobeusedinconnectionwithaprojectoractivitywhichcannotbe
delayedwithoutcausingdetrimenttothepublicservice
c. Whenever the materials are sold by an exclusive distributor or manufacturer who does not
have subdealers selling at lower prices and for which no suitable substitute can be
obtainedelsewhereatmoreadvantageoustermstothegovernment
d.Wheneverthesuppliesunderprocurementhavebeenunsuccessfullyplacedonbidforatleast
two consecutive times, either due to lack of bidders or the offers received in each
instancewereexorbitantornonconformingtospecifications
e.In cases where it is apparent that the requisition of the needed supplies through negotiated
purchase is most advantageous to the government to be determined by the Department
Headconcerned
[46]
f.Wheneverthepurchaseismadefromanagencyofthegovernment.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 16/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211 [46]
f.Wheneverthepurchaseismadefromanagencyofthegovernment.

[47]
NationalCenterforMentalHealthv.CommissiononAudit upheldthevalidity
ofthenegotiatedcontractsfortherenovationandtheimprovementoftheNationalCenter

forMentalHealth.Inthatcase,petitionerswereabletoshowthatthelongoverdueneed
torenovatetheCentermadeitcompellingtofasttrackwhathadbeenfelttobeessential
[48]
inprovidingdueandpropertreatmentandcareforthecenterspatients.

[49]
ThisjustificationwaslikewiseacceptedinBaylonv.Ombudsman inwhichwe
recognizedthatthepurchasesweremadeinresponsetoanemergencybroughtaboutby
the shortage in the blood supply available to the public. The shortage was a matter
recognizedandaddressedbythenSecretaryofHealthJuanM.Flavier,whoattestedthat
hedirectedtheNKTI[NationalKidneyandTransplantInstitute]todosomethingabout
the situation and immediately fasttrack the implementation of the Voluntary Blood
DonationProgramofthegovernmentinordertopreventfurtherdeathsowingtothelack
[50]
ofblood.

Unfortunately for petitioner, there was no showing of any immediate and
compellingjustificationfordispensingwiththerequirementofpublicbidding.Wecannot
accepthisunsubstantiatedreasoningthatapublicbiddingwouldunnecessarilydelaythe
purchaseoftheSLTDs.Notonlywouldhehavetoprovethatindeedtherewouldbea
delay but, more important, he would have to show how a public bidding would be
detrimentalandantitheticaltopublicservice.
AstheCOAReportaptlystates,thelawonpublicbiddingisnotanemptyformality.It
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 17/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

AstheCOAReportaptlystates,thelawonpublicbiddingisnotanemptyformality.It
aimstosecurethelowestpossiblepriceandobtainthebestbargainforthegovernment.It

is based on the principle that under ordinary circumstances, fair competition in the
[51]
markettendstolowerpricesandeliminatefavoritism.

Inthiscase,theDECSDivisionOfficeofDavaodelSurfailedtoconductpublic
biddingonthesubjecttransactions.Theprocurementoflaboratorytoolsanddeviceswas
consummated with only the following documents to compensate for the absence of a
publicbidding:
1.13.aPricelistsfurnishedbytheSupplyCoordinationOffice
1.13.b. Price lists furnished by the Procurement Services of the Department of Budget and
Management
[52]
1.13.c.PricelistsofEsteemEnterprises


TheCOAReportstatesthattheDivisionOfficemerelyreliedontheabovedocumentsas
basis for concluding that the prices offered by DImplacable Enterprises and Jovens
Tradingwerereasonable.ButasfoundbytheCOA,relianceontheforegoingsupporting
documentswascompletelywithoutmeritonthefollowinggrounds:

a. The Supply Coordination Office was already dissolved or abolished at the time when the
transactionswereconsummated,thus,itisillogicalforthemanagementtoconsiderthe
pricelistsfurnishedbytheSupplyCoordinationOffice.

b.TheindorsementlettermadebytheProcurementServicesoftheDepartmentofBudgetand
ManagementcontainingthepricelistsspecificallymentionsGriffinandGeorgebrands,
madeinEngland.However,themanagementdidnotprocurethesebrandsof[SLTDs].

c. The price lists furnished by the Esteem Enterprises does not deserve the scantest
consideration, since there is no law or regulation specifically mentioning that the price
[53]
listsoftheEsteemEnterpriseswillbeusedasbasisforbuying[SLTDs].


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 18/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

Grantingarguendo that petitioner did not have a hand in the procurement and that the
transactionsemanatedfromtheDivisionOfficeofDavaodelSur,westillfindhimliable

as the final approving authority. In fact, Exhibit B2 Purchase Order No. 90024,
amountingtoP231,012anddatedDecember17,1990wasrecommendedbyJairaland
[54]
approved by petitioner. This exhibit was part of the evidence adduced in the
SandiganbayantoprovethatthepurchaseoftheSLTDswasconsummatedanddulypaid
bytheDECSwithoutanyproofofpublicbidding.
[55]
AlthoughthisCourthaspreviouslyruled thatallheadsofofficeshavetorelyto
areasonableextentontheirsubordinatesandonthegoodfaithofthosewhopreparebids,
purchasesuppliesorenterintonegotiations,itisnotunreasonabletoexpectpetitionerto
exercise the necessary diligence in making sure at the very least, that the proper
formalities in the questioned transaction were observed that a public bidding was
conducted. This step does not entail delving into intricate details of product quality,
completedeliveryorfairandaccuratepricing.

Unlikeotherminuterequirementsingovernmentprocurement,complianceornon
compliance with the rules on public bidding is readily apparent and the approving
authority can easily call the attention of the subordinates concerned. To rule otherwise
wouldbetorendermeaninglesstheaccountabilityofhighrankingpublicofficialsandto
reducetheirapprovingauthoritytonothingmorethanamererubberstamp.Theprocess
ofapprovalisnotaministerialdutyofapprovingauthoritiestosigneverydocumentthat
comesacrosstheirdesks,andthenpoint
totheirsubordinatesasthepartiesresponsibleifsomethinggoesawry.

SuspensionofPurchases
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 19/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

ObviouslyworkingagainstpetitionerisDECSOrderNo.100datedSeptember3,
1990whichstatesthus:

In view of the Governments call for economy measures coupled with the deficiency in
allotments intended for the payment of salary standardization, retirement benefits, bonus and
other priority items, the procurement of reference and supplementary materials, tools and
devices equipment, furniture, including land acquisition and land improvement shall be
suspended for CY 1990. However, the following items shall be exempted from the said
suspension:

a) textbooks published by the Instructional Materials Corporation and its
commercialedition
b)elementaryschooldesksandtabletarmchairs[.]

As the COA Report succinctly states, the Administrative Order is explicit in its
provisions that tools and devices were among the items whose procurement was
suspendedbytheDECSfortheyear1990.

Petitionerclaimsthatintheadministrativecaseagainsthim,therewasnomentionofa
[56]
violation of DECS Order No. 100. He alleges that the purchases of SLTDs by the
division superintendents were entered into and perfected on July 1, 1990 that is, more
thantwo(2)monthsbeforetheissuanceofDECSOrderNo.100.Healsoallegedthatthe
SubAllotment Advice (SAA) to the DECS Regional Office No. XI in the amount of
P9.36M out of which P603,265.00 was used for the procurement of the questioned
SLTDshadbeenreleasedbytheDECSCentralOfficeinAugust1990,amonthbefore
theissuanceofDECSOrderNo.100.

TheCourtnotesthattheseargumentsaremereassertionsbereftofanyproof.Therewas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 20/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
TheCourtnotesthattheseargumentsaremereassertionsbereftofanyproof.Therewas
noevidencepresentedtoprovethattheSAAwasissuedpriortotheeffectivityofDECS
Order No. 100. On the other hand, the COA Report states that the DECS Division of
[57]
DavaodelSurreceivedthefollowingLettersofAdviceofAllotments(LAA):


LAANO.AMOUNTDATEOFLAA
DOCO47177490P141,956.00October24,1990
DOCO47179790P161,309.00November16,1990
DOCO471100790P300,000.00December14,1990


[58]
The foregoing LAAs were attached as annexes to the COA Report and were
[59]
presentedduringtrialintheSandiganbayan.

Also, Schools Division Superintendent Jairal had sent a letter to petitioner, requesting
favorable consideration of a forthcoming release of funding for the different barangay
[60]
andmunicipalhighschools.The letter was dated October 16, 1990, andwasmade
wellwithintheeffectivityoftheDECSOrder.Inthatletter,Jairalmentionedthereceipt
byhisofficeofDECSOrderNo.100,albeitwronglyinterpretingitassuspendingonly
thepurchasesofreferencebooks,supplementaryreaders,andsoon,butallegedlysilent
[61]
onthepurchaseoflaboratorysuppliesandmaterials.
Finally,theSLTDswerepurchasedwithinthecoveredperiodofDECSOrderNo.
100,asevidencedbythefollowingrelevant
documentsadducedbytheCOAauditteam,amongothers:

1) Disbursement Voucher dated November 27, 1990 for the payment of various laboratory
[62]
suppliesandmaterialsbyDECS,DavaodelSurintheamountofP303,29.40
2) OfficialReceiptNo.455datedJanuary7,1991amountingtoP68,424.00issuedbyJovens
[63]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 21/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
[63]
Trading
3) ReportofInspectiondatedNovember26,1990signedbyJacintaVillarealandFelicisimo
[64]
Canoy
4)SalesInvoiceNo.044datedNovember26,1990issuedbyJovensTradinginfavorofDECS
[65]
amountingtoP303,259.40
[66]
5)CertificateofAcceptancedatedNovember27,1990signedbyFelicismoCanoy
6) Purchase Order No. 90021 in favor of Jovens Trading dated November 26, 1990
[67]
recommendedforapprovalbyAjatilJairal
7) Official Receipt No. 92356 dated January 7, 1991 issued by DImplacable Enterprises
[68]
amountingtoP231,012.00
8) PurchaseOrderNo.90024datedDecember17,1990recommendedforapprovalbyAjatil
[69]
JairalandapprovedDirectorVenancioNavaamountingtoP231,012.00.

The confluence of the foregoing circumstances indubitably establishes that
petitioner indeed wantonly disregarded regulations.Additionally, DECS Order No. 100
negateshisclaimthatthenegotiatedtransactiondoneinsteadofapublicbiddingwas
justified.IfthatOrdersuspendedtheacquisitionoftoolsanddevices,thentherewasall
themorereasonformakingpurchasesbypublicbidding.Sincethebuyingoftoolsand
deviceswasspecificallysuspended,petitionercannotarguethatthepurchasesweredone
intheinterestofpublicservice.

ProofofGuilt

To sustain a conviction under Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, it must be
clearlyproventhat1)theaccusedisapublicofficer2)thepublicofficerenteredintoa
contract or transaction on behalf of the government and 3) the contract or transaction
[70]
wasgrosslyandmanifestlydisadvantageoustothegovernment.

Fromtheforegoing,itisclearthattheSandiganbayandidnoterrinrulingthatthe
evidencepresentedwarrantedaverdictofconviction.Petitionerisapublicofficer,who
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 22/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211

approved the transactions on behalf of the government, which thereby suffered a

substantial loss. The discrepancy between the prices of the SLTDs purchased by the
DECSandthesamplespurchasedbytheCOAauditteamclearlyestablishedsuchundue
injury. Indeed, the discrepancy was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government.

Wemustemphasizehowever,thatthelackofapublicbiddingandtheviolationof
an administrative order do not by themselves satisfy the third element of Republic Act
No. 3019, Section 3(g) namely, that the contract or transaction entered into was
manifestlyandgrosslydisadvantageoustothegovernment,asseemstobestatedinthe
[71]
Resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Lackof
public bidding alone does not result in a manifest and gross disadvantage. Indeed, the
absence of a public bidding may mean that the government was not able to secure the
lowestbargaininitsfavorandmayopenthedoortograftandcorruption.Nevertheless,
thelawrequiresthatthedisadvantagemustbemanifestandgross.Penallawsarestrictly
[72]
construedagainstthegovernment.

Iftheaccusedistobesenttojail,itmustbebecausethereissolidevidencetopin
thatpersondown,notbecauseoftheomissionofaproceduralmatteralone.Indeed,all
the elements of a violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 should be

establishedtoprovetheculpabilityoftheaccused.Inthiscase,thereisaclearshowing
that all the elements of the offense are present.Thus, there can be no other conclusion
otherthanconviction.

Wenote,however,thatpetitionerwassentencedtosufferthepenaltyofsix(6)yearsand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 23/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
Wenote,however,thatpetitionerwassentencedtosufferthepenaltyofsix(6)yearsand
one (1) day as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day as maximum. Under
Section9ofRepublicAct3019,petitionershouldbepunishedwithimprisonmentofnot
lessthansix(6)yearsandone(1)monthnormorethanfifteenyears.Thus,weadjustthe
minimumpenaltyimposedonpetitionerinaccordancewiththelaw.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisionandResolutionare
AFFIRMED,withtheMODIFICATIONthat the minimum sentence imposed shall be
six (6) years and one (1) month, not six (6) years and one (1) day. Costs against
petitioner.

SOORDERED.


ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice
Chairperson,FirstDivision


WECONCUR:



CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGOMA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice



ROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice


CERTIFICATION


PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsin
the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 24/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.366.
[2]
Id.at6888.FourthDivision.PennedbyJusticeRodolfoG.PalattaoandconcurredinbyJusticesGregoryS.Ong
(Divisionchair)andMa.CristinaG.CortezEstrada(member).
[3]
AssailedSandiganbayanDecision,pp.1920rollo,pp.8687.(Emphasesintheoriginal)
[4]
Id.at911id.at7678.
[5]
ThecasewasdocketedasCriminalCaseNo.23627.
[6]
InformationdatedMarch17,1997,p.1rollo,p.145.
[7]
OrderdatedAugust1,1997rollo,pp.148150.
[8]
On May 27, 1998, the case against Teodora Indin was dismissed upon Motion of the Ombudsman in the Order
dated December 4, 2000, the cases against Antonio S. Tan and Evelyn L. Miranda, the proprietor and
authorizedrepresentativeofDImplacableEnterprise,wereordereddismissedforfailureoftheprosecutionto
establishthechargeagainstthembyanyadmissibleandreliableproof.
AjatilJairal,RosalindaMerkaandJosephVenturawereallacquittedbytheSandiganbayan.
[9]
AssailedSandiganbayanDecision,p.11rollop.78.
[10]
Id.at15id.at82.
[11]
Id. at 16 id.at83.The Sandiganbayan ruled:The evidence adduced by accused Superintendent Ajatil Jairal is
very enlightening. It supports the collective claim of all the other superintendents who were unnecessarily
draggedintothecasebecauseofthegreedandevilmindofonemaninthepersonofaccusedVenancioNava.It
wasindeedNavawhobroughtthemtothiscruelsituation.xxx.
[12]
Id.at17id.at84.
[13]
Id.
[14]
This case was deemed submitted for decision on January 7, 2005, upon this Courts receipt of petitioners
Memorandum, signed by Atty. Jose Armand C. Arevalo. Received on December 7, 2004 was respondents
Memorandum, signed by Special Prosecutor Dennis M. VillaIgnacio, Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E.
Kallos,actingDirector,ASABOSPPilaritaT.LapitanandSpecialProsecutionOfficerIICiceroD.JuradoJr.
[15]
PetitionersMemorandum,pp.68.
[16]
Presidential Decree No. 1606 (1978), Sec. 7. Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating a Special Court
to be Known as Sandiganbayan and for Other Purposes.
[17]
Republic Act No. 8249 (1997), Sec. 5. An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for
Other Purposes.
[18]
Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., GR No. 160966, October 11, 2005.
[19]
Chua v. Santos, 440 SCRA 365, October 18, 2004.
[20]
People v. Sandiganbayan, 449 SCRA 205, January 21, 2005; Rosete v. CA, 393 Phil. 593, August 29, 2000; Bernardo
v. CA, 275 SCRA 413, July 14, 1997. See also RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sec. 1.
[21]
Nautica Canning Corp. v. Yumul, GR No. 164588, October 19, 2005.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 25/27
 [21]
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
Nautica Canning Corp. v. Yumul, GR No. 164588, October 19, 2005.
[22]
People v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 20.
[23]
PetitionersMemorandum,pp.89.
[24]
Rollo,pp.287305.
[25]
PetitionersMemorandump.54.
[26]
CONSTITUTION,Art.IXD,Sec.2(1).
[27]
CONSTITUTION,Art.IXD,Sec.2(2).
[28]
Cuerdov.CommissiononAudit,166SCRA657,October27,1988.
[29]
Villanuevav.CommissiononAudit,453SCRA782,March18,2005Olaguerv.Domingo,359SCRA78,June
20,2001.
[30]
Respondentsmemorandum,p.19rollo,p.446.
[31]
PetitionersMemorandum,p.15.
[32]
COAReport,pp.67rollo,pp.99100.
[33]
Id.at8id.at101.
[34]
Rollo,pp.230233.
[35]
AssailedSandiganbayanDecision,p.12rollo,p.79.
[36]
SeePeoplev.Baao,142SCRA476,July7,1986.
[37]
SeeRemolonav.CivilServiceCommission,362SCRA304,August2,2001.
[38]
202SCRA147,September30,1991.
[39]
SeeFormalOfferofEvidence,referringtoExhibitsAE7rollo,pp.152236.
[40]
RespondentsMemorandum,p.24rollo,p.451.
[41]
PetitionersMemorandum,pp.7282.
[42]
DECSAdministrativeCaseNo.XI91088,October21,1996(rollo,pp.287305).
[43]
Id.at290.
[44]
PetitionersMemorandum,p.55.

[45]
Id.at57.
[46]
ExecutiveOrderNo.301(1987),Sec.1.
[47]
265SCRA390,December6,1996.
[48]
Id.at404,perVitug,J.
[49]
372SCRA437,December14,2001.
[50]
Id.at453,perPardo,J.
[51]
COAReportp.10,rollop.103.
[52]
Id.at1011id.at103104.
[53]
Id.at1112id.at104105.
[54]
FormalOfferofEvidence,pp.23rollo,pp.153154.
[55]
Ariasv.Sandiganbayan,180SCRA309,December19,1989.
[56]
PetitionersMemorandum,p.58.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 26/27
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 160211
[56]
PetitionersMemorandum,p.58.
[57]
COAReport,p.14rollo,p.107.
[58]
Rollo,pp.162164and221224.
[59]
ExhibitsA,A1,A2FormalOfferofEvidence,p.1rollo,p.152.
[60]
Rollo,p.236.
[61]
Id.
[62]
ExhibitCrollo,p.154.
[63]
ExhibitC4id.at155.
[64]
ExhibitC5id.
[65]
ExhibitC6id.
[66]
ExhibitC7id.
[67]
ExhibitC8id.
[68]
ExhibitB3id.at153.
[69]
ExhibitB2id.
[70]
SeeMoralesv.People,385SCRA259,July26,2002.
[71]
AssailedResolutiondatedSeptember29,2003,p.3rollo,p.142.
[72]
Centenov.VillalonPornillos,236SCRA197,September1,1994.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/160211.htm 27/27