Libunao v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves the utilization of the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) allocated to Congressman Constantino H. Navarro, Jr. A special review by the Commission on Audit (COA) revealed that P13,832,569.00 of the CDF was used to purchase assorted medicines, shabu testing kits, nebulizing machines, sporting materials, rice paddy plows (araro), blackboard erasers, chalks, and notebooks from various suppliers. These purchases were made through direct contracting instead of public bidding, in violation of Section 3 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 302, resulting in an overpricing of P2,863,689.36. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman filed criminal charges against several individuals, including petitioner Quirino M. Libunao, then Regional Director of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)-Caraga Region, for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Specifically, Libunao was charged in Criminal Case No. 27803 for the purchase of medicines from San Marino Laboratories Corporation and in Criminal Case No. 27805 for the purchase of araro tools from Revelstone Sales International. Libunao pleaded not guilty. The Sandiganbayan, in its Decision dated January 16, 2014, found Libunao guilty beyond reasonable doubt for both counts and sentenced him to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office. The Sandiganbayan denied his Motion for Reconsideration on September 12, 2014. The Petition: Libunao filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's decision. He argued that his constitutional rights to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation were violated because he was convicted under Section 3(e) when the Informations allegedly charged him under Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. He also contended that the elements of Section 3(g) were not proven, and even if Section 3(e) was charged, its elements were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan violated petitioner's constitutional right to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation by convicting him of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 when the Informations were allegedly designated as Section 3(g). Whether the elements of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan's Decision. Petitioner Quirino M. Libunao was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, for each count, with perpetual disqualification from public office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of due process and right to be informed of the accusation: The Court held that it is not the technical name or designation of the crime in the information, but the facts alleged in the body thereof that determine the character of the crime. The Re-Amended Informations clearly alleged facts constituting a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, namely, acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence in giving unwarranted benefits and causing undue injury to the government by entering into contracts without public bidding. Therefore, petitioner was sufficiently informed of the offense charged. The Court also noted that even if the Information was duplicitous, petitioner waived his right to question it by failing to move for its quashal before pleading. On whether the elements of Section 3(g) were proven: The Court found this issue moot as the conviction was based on Section 3(e). However, it reiterated that the Sandiganbayan correctly considered the allegation of entering into a contract as the means by which Section 3(e) was violated, not as a separate charge under Section 3(g). The Court emphasized that the facts alleged in the Information were controlling and sufficiently apprised the petitioner of the charge. On whether the elements of Section 3(e) were proven beyond reasonable doubt: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's findings. The first element was met as petitioner was a public officer acting in his official capacity. The second element, pertaining to manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, was satisfied by petitioner's gross inexcusable negligence in approving the transactions without public bidding, despite the absence of any justification for direct contracting. The third element, causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits, was also met as the government suffered overpricing and other suppliers were precluded from bidding. The Court rejected petitioner's defense of relying on subordinates, citing the Arias doctrine's limitations and the obvious nature of the procurement irregularities.
Main Doctrine
A public officer may be convicted of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 through gross inexcusable negligence in approving transactions without public bidding, even if the information was designated as Section 3(g), as the facts alleged determine the crime. Reliance on subordinates does not shield a public officer from liability when obvious irregularities are present.