Lee v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Province of Sorsogon, under Governor Raul R. Lee, was allocated P5,000,000.00 from AFMA appropriations for agricultural supplies. Governor Lee led the project for the acquisition of fertilizers. Two procurements were made: 2,000 liters for P3,000,000.00 and 133 liters for P199,500.00, both at P1,500.00 per liter, from Feshan Phils. Inc. The Commission on Audit (COA) observed non-compliance with laws, rules, and regulations in these transactions, specifically the procurement of fertilizers. The COA noted that the procurement was done through direct contracting without public bidding, the brand name "Bio Nature" was specified, and there was no BAC resolution, notice of award, or notice to proceed. The COA also found that other suppliers offered the same product at lower prices, and suitable substitutes were available. Furthermore, Feshan Phils. Inc. was not licensed by the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) in 2004, and the purchase price was significantly higher than the FPA's average prices. Procedural History: Four Informations were filed against Governor Lee, Raul G. Hernandez, and Ofelia D. Velasco before the Sandiganbayan for violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019. Lee and Velasco filed a first motion to quash, alleging violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases and lack of probable cause, which was denied. Lee filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. Lee and Velasco filed a second motion to quash, citing the ruling in Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, arguing the Sandiganbayan lost jurisdiction. This was also denied, with the Sandiganbayan citing res judicata. Lee's motion for reconsideration was denied. Trial ensued. The Sandiganbayan, in a Decision dated August 18, 2017, found Lee and Hernandez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019, but acquitted Velasco. Lee's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner Raul R. Lee filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Sandiganbayan, raising issues regarding findings of fact not alleged in the Information, non-application of Coscolluela, violation of speedy disposition of cases and equal protection, and disregard of Caunan and Marquez in ruling on overpricing.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner Lee based on a finding of fact not alleged in the Information, thereby violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusations against him. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in not applying the ruling in Coscolluela, thereby violating his right to speedy disposition of cases and his right to equal protection of law. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred when it disregarded Caunan and Marquez in ruling on the alleged overpricing.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious. The Decision and Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated August 18, 2017 and October 10, 2017, respectively, in Criminal Cases Nos. SB-11-CRM-0036 to 0039 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged variance between allegations and proof regarding the type of fertilizer: The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that "Bio Nature Liquid Fertilizer" and "Bio Nature Organic Fertilizer" refer to the same product, a fact supported by documentary evidence showing they were used interchangeably. Petitioner Lee was fully aware of the documents and evidence presented against him and was afforded the opportunity to confront them and cross-examine witnesses, thus satisfying his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. The alleged variance did not constitute a violation of his rights. On the non-application of Coscolluela and the alleged violation of speedy disposition of cases and equal protection: The case of Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan is not applicable because the circumstances are not on all fours with the present case. In Coscolluela, the motion to quash was filed before arraignment and was the first such motion. In this case, Lee's motions to quash were filed after arraignment, and prior rulings denying these motions had already attained finality, establishing the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the transactions in this case are more intricate than the simple transaction in Coscolluela. The Court held that the delay in disposition did not reach the point of oppression, and the State's right to prosecute should not be curtailed when postponements do not reach such a point. Therefore, the contention of violation of speedy disposition of cases and equal protection is without merit. On the alleged disregard of Caunan and Marquez in ruling on overpricing: The invocation of Caunan and Marquez is misplaced because the circumstances in those cases, involving the procurement of walis tingting, are different from the procurement of fertilizers. The manufacture, sale, and distribution of fertilizers are regulated by law, with the Fertilizer and Pesticides Authority (FPA) maintaining lists of licensed handlers and registered fertilizers, and conducting price monitoring. This readily available data, including COA price canvasses and FPA data from around the time of the purchases, provided competent evidence to determine prevailing prices and the existence of suitable substitutes. These pieces of evidence showed that the contract entered into by the Province of Sorsogon was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the Government. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of the evidence presented.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan did not err in convicting petitioner Lee for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019, as the procurement of fertilizers through direct contracting was not justified, lacked public bidding, and resulted in unwarranted benefit to the supplier and undue injury to the government, given the existence of lower-priced alternatives and suitable substitutes in the market. The petitioner's claims regarding variance in allegations, violation of speedy disposition of cases, and misapplication of jurisprudence on overpricing were found to be without merit.