REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
~anniBanha~an
Quezon City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
SB-13-CRM-0575
For: Violation of Section 3(e) of
of Republic Act No. 3019
CABOTAJE-TANG,
P.J.,
Chairperson
MARTIRES*, J. and
FERNANDEZ, SJ, J.
MANUEL A. TIO, ET AL.
Accused.
~~~.,2PJ~
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration (Of the Decision
Dated 29 November 2016)1 of accused Manuel A. Tio and the Motion
for Reconsideration2 of accused Lolita I. Cadiz, both Motions assailing
this Court's Decision dated November 29,2016,3 finding both accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act
No. 3019 (R.A. No. 3019).
1. The prosecution failed to show that he chose Double A to
give it unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
because it did not present evidence to prove that th~re
were other suppliers willing to provide the required
• J. M, rt;,e,
w" , membe' ofthe 3" D;v;,;on'tthe
t;me the p,e,en! c"e
w" ,ubmated fo' ded,;
(Rule XII, Sec. 3 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan), and participated
decision (Rule IX, Sec. 2[a] of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan).
1 Dated December 13, 2016; pp. 58-69, Record, Vol. II
2 Dated December 6,2016;
pp. 70-78, Record, Vol. II
3 pp. 17-46, Record, Vol. II
in the assailed
nC
fk1
~
RESOLUTION
People. vs. Tio, et at.
Crimina/ Case No. SB-13-CRM-0575
construction supplies at prices lower than that offered by
Double A.
2. The award of the supply contract to Double A was not
unjustified, notwithstanding the lack of public bidding,
because the government benefited from the supply
contract. Moreover, according to Caunan v. People,4 the
absence of a public bidding does not automatically result
in a manifest and gross disadvantage to the government.
3. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he acted with
partiality or bad faith, such partiality and bad faith cannot
be characterized as manifest and evident, respectively.
The award of the contract to Double A may have been
mere bad judgment on his part.
4.' Gross inexcusable negligence cannot be attributed to him
on the basis of his approval of the disbursement voucher
because the supporting
documents
were
merely
incomplete, not totally absent.
Accused Cadiz, in her separate Motion, argues that she had no
involvement in the implementation of the road concreting project. That
she failed to perfectly perform her functions as Municipal Accountant
does not necessarily mean that she acted in bad faith to cause undue
injury to the Government.
In its Consolidated
Opposition
(to the Motions
for
Reconsideration),5 the prosecution counters that the Court correctly
found that accused Tio and Cadiz acted with manifest partiality and
gross inexcusable negligence. Accused Tio favored a single supplier
when he awarded the contract for the purchase of construction
materials to Double A without conducting a public bidding. On the
other hand, both accused Tio and Cadiz acted with gross inexcusable
negligence when they caused the disbursement of public funds despite
the incompleteness of the supporting documents.
In his Reply (to the Plaintiff's Consolidated Opposition Dated 24
January 2017),6 accused Tio reiterates that his admission of the fac
4
5
G.R. Nos. 181999, 182001-04, and 182020-24, September
Dated January 24,2017; pp. 111-115, Record, Vol. II
2, 2009
Dated January 25,2017; pp. 120-122, Record, Vol. II; Attached to Motion
January 25,2017 (pp. 118-122, Record, Vol. II)
6
to Admit Attached
I '
Reply date~
PfJ/
RESOLUTION
People. vs. Tio, et al.
Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0575
that no public bidding was held should not have resulted in his
conviction for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 because the
prosecution failed to prove that there were other entities willing and
capable of providing the said construction materials at the same or
lower price.
The Motions of accused Tio and Cadiz are bereft of merit and
should be denied.
First. To prove that Double A was given unwarranted benefits,
the prosecution does not have to show that there were other suppliers
willing to provide the needed construction materials at the same or
lower price.
It bears reiterating that in Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan,7 the
phrase "unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference" was defined
as follows:
In Gallego v. Sandiganbayan,
the Court ruled that
"unwarranted"
means lacking adequate or official support;
unjustified; unauthorized; or without justification or adequate reasons.
"Advantage" means a more favorable or improved position or
condition; benefit or gain of any kind; benefit from course of action.
"Preference" signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability;
choice or estimation above another.
Considering that Sec. 108 of Republic Act No. 9184 requires that
all procurement be done through competitive bidding, and that the
prosecution established that the award to Double A was done without
the required bidding, in contravention of the said provision, it was
incumbent upon accused Tio to show that the award to Double A was
justified. It was unnecessary for the prosecution to prove that there
were suppliers willing to sell the constructi~omate ials at the same, or
at a lower price than that offered by Double A
/'7 ~
7
G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October 25,2004
Sec. 10. Competitive Bidding. - All Procurement
provided for in Article XVI of this Act.
8
shall be done through Competitive
Bidding, except as
RESOLUTION
People. vs. Tio, et al.
Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0575
Double A was undoubtedly given benefit or gain from the award
of the supply contract and accused Tio failed to show any valid
justification for his act of awarding the said contract to Double A without
the requisite public bidding. Therefore, the element of "giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions" is clearly present.
Second. Indeed, in Caunan,9 the Supreme Court held that the
lack of public bidding alone does not automatically equate to a manifest
and gross disadvantage to the government. To wit:
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. Sandiganbayan, 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.
In that case, the accused were charged with violation of Sec. 3(g}
of R.A. No. 3019. It was necessary to determine if the contracts were
grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government because
"that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government" is an element of the offense of
violation of Sec. 3(g} of R.A. No. 3019. The ruling in that case finds no
application in the case at bar.
That a contract is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government is not an element of violation of Sec. 3(e} of R.A. No. 3019.
The mere fact that a contract is not "grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government" does not preclud.e an accused
from acting with manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence
resulting in the giving of unwarranted benefits to any private party.
Third. The other arguments of accused Tio and Cadiz are a
reiteration and rehash of their previous arguments. These had already
been judiciously considered and addressed by this Court in the
Decision dated Nove ber 29,2016. Thus, it is unnecessary to discuss
the same anew.
RESOLUTION
People. vs. Tio, et al.
Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0575
In Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc. v. Court of Appea/s,10 the
Supreme Court held:
In the same manner, we readily found that, despite the lengthy
and repetitious submissions of petitioner in its pleadings filed with
this Court as earlier enumerated, all the arguments therein are also
mere rehashed versions of what it posited before respondent court.
We have patiently given petitioner's postulates the corresponding
thorough and objective review but, on the real and proper issues so
completely and competently discussed and resolved by respondent
court, petitioner's obvious convolutions of the same arguments are
evidently unavailing. x x x
In Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan,11 it was held:
Concerning the first ground abovecited, the Court notes that
the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments
already submitted to the Court and found to be without merit.
Petitioner fails to raise any new and substantial arguments, and no
cogent reason exists to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's
Resolution. It would be a useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself.
In any event, a thoughtful assessment of the records of the case
and of the assailed Decision fails to convince this Court that the
Motions for Reconsideration of accused Tio and Cadiz are impressed
with merit to warrant the reversal of the said Decision.
WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsiderafon
and Cadiz are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
10
11
G.R. No. 127682, April 24, 1998
G.R. Nos. 146368-69, October 18, 2004
of accused Tio
RESOLUTION
People. vs. Tio, et at.
Crimina/ Case No. SB-13-CRM-0575
A~TAJE/'
G
Presiding Justice
Chairperson