People v. Cedeño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a special audit on the purchase of graders' desks by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Region XII, for the period January 1, 1992, to September 30, 1993. The audit report revealed that the government was defrauded in the amount of ₱5,268,610.00 due to the short delivery of 10,487 pieces of graders' desks. This led to the filing of six Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 against various DECS officials and private suppliers before the Sandiganbayan. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, rendered a decision on November 25, 2009, finding several accused guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and sentencing them to imprisonment and to indemnify the government. Subsequently, on July 15, 2010, the Sandiganbayan granted the motions for reconsideration of Diamar P. Kadon and Luis Dy, acquitting them in certain cases due to reasonable doubt. The motions for reconsideration of Makil U. Pundaodaya, Daud M. Adiong, and Napoleon O. Cedeño were denied. The Petition: Petitioners Napoleon O. Cedeño, Makil U. Pundaodaya, Daud M. Adiong, Jose T. Navera, and Rogelio Delos Reyes sought the reversal of the Sandiganbayan's decision through separate petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in holding the petitioners guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 based on the COA audit report and testimony. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the active and knowing participation of the petitioners in the anomalous transactions, including the alleged conspiracy. Whether the Sandiganbayan mistakenly appreciated the facts when ruling that the petitioners accomplished false inspection reports and whether the deliveries of the graders' desks were actually made, contrary to the findings of ghost deliveries. Whether the petitioners should be acquitted along with co-accused Diamar P. Kadon and Luis Dy, considering the alleged commonality of facts and evidence. On the petitions of Navera and Delos Reyes and the nature of the issues raised.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan. The Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not err in finding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Court found that the evidence on record sufficiently proved the guilt of the petitioners, particularly Pundaodaya, Adiong, and Cedeño, who acted with evident bad faith and extended unwarranted benefits to private parties, causing undue injury to the government. The Court also held that the petitions of Navera and Delos Reyes were filed beyond the reglementary period and thus prescribed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of petitioners Pundaodaya, Adiong, and Cedeño: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding that these petitioners acted with evident bad faith and extended unwarranted benefits to private suppliers, causing undue injury to the government. The elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were established: (1) the accused were public officers discharging official functions; (2) they acted with evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) their actions caused undue injury to the government or gave private parties unwarranted benefits. The Court found that the petitioners failed to refute the COA team's findings of short deliveries and ghost deliveries, relying instead on bare claims of performing their duties and that deliveries were complete. The Court emphasized that bad faith imputes a dishonest purpose or conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of sworn duty through motive or ill will, partaking of the nature of fraud. The processing of full payment for desks despite inexistent or short deliveries, evidenced by falsified inspection reports (IRs), memorandum receipts (MRs), and delivery receipts (DRs), clearly demonstrated their bad faith and intent to extend undue advantage to suppliers. On the alleged conspiracy and active participation: The Court reiterated that conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. It can be inferred from conduct indicative of a joint purpose and concerted action, where the act of one is the act of all. The Court found that the actions of Pundaodaya, Adiong, and Cedeño, in processing payments for undelivered or short-delivered desks, demonstrated a common purpose to extend undue advantage to suppliers, thereby causing injury to the government. The Court distinguished this case from Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan and Albert v. Gangan, where the petitioners were heads of offices who relied on subordinates, noting that Cedeño, as an inspector, had a direct mandate to personally inspect the items purchased, and his signature on the IRs certified to the delivery according to specifications, quality, and quantity, despite short deliveries. On the falsification of inspection reports and actual deliveries: The Court found that Cedeño, as an inspector, had a direct mandate to personally inspect the items purchased, and his signature on the IRs certified to the delivery according to specifications, quality, and quantity, despite short deliveries. On the acquittal of Kadon and Dy: The Court noted that the Sandiganbayan acquitted Kadon and Dy based on specific findings during their motions for reconsideration. Kadon was acquitted in certain cases due to his recent transfer to Region XII and limited participation, and the fact that he called meetings to discuss matters ready for his signature. Dy was acquitted as no proof was presented of his participation in the transactions, with his manager admitting to handling the contracts and receiving payments. The Court found that the arguments presented by Pundaodaya and Adiong in their petitions did not sufficiently establish that they were similarly situated as Kadon and Dy, and their own testimonies did not convince the Court that they were innocent. On the petitions of Navera and Delos Reyes and the nature of the issues raised: The Court dismissed the petitions of Navera and Delos Reyes for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. They failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan's decision within the prescribed 15-day period from its promulgation on November 25, 2009. Consequently, their right to appeal had prescribed, and the decision against them had become final and executory. The Court reiterated that petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court pertain to questions of law, not fact. The issues raised by the petitioners, concerning the sufficiency of evidence, appreciation of facts, and proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, were deemed questions of fact. While exceptions to this rule exist, the Court found that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims to fall within these exceptions, and a review of the records confirmed that the Sandiganbayan did not err in its findings.
Main Doctrine
Public officers who, in the performance of their duties, act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury to the government or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference, are guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused indicative of a joint purpose and concerted action, and in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.