Sajul v. Sandiganbayan

KAPUNAN, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) promulgated on July 31, 1998 finding petitioner Andres Sajul guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019 and imposing upon him the indeterminate prison term of six (6) years and one (1) day as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum with perpetual disqualification from holding public office. The information reads as follows: That on or about May, 1985, or immediately prior and subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused, a public officer, being then the Regional Director, Region V of the defunct Land Transportation Commission, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully enter into a manifestly and grossly disadvantageous transaction with a certain Cayetano Gacilo, c/o Bato-Bato Enterprises, by purchasing from the latter twenty three (23) units of fire extinguishers, which were found defective, valued at P2,500.00 per unit or a total amount of P57,500.00, when in truth and in fact, the actual, real and prevailing cost of the extinguishers of the same kind and quality at the time of purchase was only P1,500.00, a difference of P1,000.00 each per unit, or a total difference of P23,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the Government.

CONTRARY TO LAW. Manila, Philippines, 30 July 1992.1 Upon arraignment on August 13, 1993, petitioner pleaded "not guilty." The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Lilia de la Cruz Cadores - Regulation Officer II of the Land Transportation Office (LTO)-Southern Licensing Center; (2) Edna Ramos Garvida - Chief Transportation Regulation Officer of the LTO, NCR; (3) Sampaguita Sobredo Santos - COA Auditor, Resident Auditor of the Board Of Investment ; (4) Ana Marie Javellana - Chemist and a professor of Ateneo de Manila.

The prosecution also submitted its Formal Offer of Exhibits dated February 17, 1995 constituting Exhibits A to JJ-5. On the other hand, the defense presented: (1) Cayetano Bonuel Gacilo - a supplier of fire extinguisher and a radio commentator; and (2) the accused himself, Andres Solo Sajul. Exhibits 1 to 10 were also presented as its documentary proofs.2 This case against petitioner arose when Lilia Cadores who was the Acting Property Officer of the Land Transportation Commission- National Capital Region (LTC-NCR) from 1984 to 1988 was called by Director Andres Sajul to his office sometime in April, 1985.

She was shown certain documents such as the Request to Issue Voucher (RIV), Purchase Order (PO), Certification, etc. She was told to sign the RIV and the PO for the purchase of the 23 units of fire extinguishers from Bato-Bato Enterprises. She refused to sign the request forms on the ground that the previous deliveries of Bato-Bato Enterprises were defective and the price exorbitant.

She proposed/suggested to Director Sajul to subject the transaction to a public bidding or open canvass so they will be able to purchase the same at a lower price. Director Sajul, however, got mad and even slammed shut his attache case in front of her, uttering bad words such as "bullshit" and similar words.

Cadores got out of the room and proceeded to the comfort room and cried. She reported the incident to Ms. Edna Garvida, the chief of Administrative Division. The matter was referred for consultation to the Regional Accountant, Resident Auditor, Asst.

Regional Director and the Chief of Administrative Division and all the members thereof agreed that the transaction be subjected to public bidding and open canvass.

On May 8, 1985, she submitted a briefing memo to Director Andres Sajul where she put down into writing her objections to the purchase/payment of the 23 fire extinguishers from Bato-Bato Enterprises. She stated that the offer of Bato-Bato Enterprises was exorbitant as the office might be able to negotiate for a lesser offer for the same kind of product through public bidding such as the offer of Zodiac Trading. In July, 1985, Cadores together with Edna Garvida took one unit of fire extinguisher and had it tested at the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

The Director of the Product Standard Agency (PSA), Ignacio Salcedo Jr. referred them to the Philippine Institute of Pure and Applied Chemistry (PIPAC) which conducts tests for the PSA. Dr. Ana Maria Javellana, a Chemist and the Acting Director of the PIPAC certified the report "Analysis of Bromochlorodiflouromethane (BCF)" of the fire extinguisher brought to said office for testing.

The report stated that the fire extinguisher being tested yielded- "No BCF found."3 For their refusal to act on the papers/documents and their bringing out of one unit of fire extinguisher for testing without authority, Cadores, as Property Officer and Garvida as Administrative Officer were relieved of their duties for two (2) weeks by petitioner. They were reinstated to their positions by LTC Chairman Bienvenido Guerrero in a Memorandum addressed to Director Andres Sajul.4 For the defense, Cayetano Gacilo y Bonuel, the owner of Bato-Bato Enterprises and supplier of the fire extinguishers was presented in court. He testified that he transacted business with Director Andres Sajul sometime in 1985 regarding the 23 units of fire extinguishers purchased by the LTC from the Bato-Bato Enterprises.

When he asked for the payment, he was informed by Director Sajul that one unit was taken to the PSA for testing. Upon learning this, he presented a complaint (protest) because the test/analysis was not made in the presence of the supplier, in violation of the Commission On Audit (COA) Rules and Regulations Series of 1979 which states: What is subject to test or analysis sample is to be taken by the Property Inspection Report. The agency concerned shall request the presence of the dealer or his authorized representative during the sampling.

The dealer or his authorized representative must sign the certificate of sampling. The property inspector shall not submit any sampling for analysis without the property accomplished certificate of sampling. No inspection or delivery shall be entertained unless the dealer submitted enough bid sample for the articles delivered.5 He admitted that initially, Director Sajul asked him to submit a quotation for the repair of 23 units of fire extinguishers.

Upon examination, however, of the fire extinguishers at the Regional Office, he informed Director Sajul that they can no longer be repaired as the containers were already dilapidated. He submitted a proposal that the office can purchase new ones from him and a discount on a trade-in basis shall be given to the Regional Office for the dilapidated containers. His offer was accepted and the Purchase Order was prepared.

He delivered the fire extinguishers after he received the POs.6 He testified further that then Minister Jose Dans, Jr. ordered the payment of the purchases after a Performance Quality Test was conducted on the grounds of the LTO Compound in the presence of LTO Officers, members of the fire brigade under Engr. Calingco and witnessed by a representative from the Fire Department of Quezon City and a representative from COA. Per actual demonstration during the Performance Quality Test, Messrs.

Aragon and Mapa put up a fire and was kept burning for ten minutes. One unit was picked up at random from the pile of the fire extinguishers and this was used to extinguish the fire. He made a written report7 on the matter because he was interested in collecting payment.

At the time payment was made, Director Sajul was no longer connected with the office. He stated that he transacted business with the LTO since 1979 but this was the first time that the quality of his product was questioned. He stated that he learned the chemical complexities of fire extinguishers through the many years of experience.

In fact, he boasts that his product, BCF Halogenated HydroCarbon, was the only one approved by the Bureau of Fire Protection.8 For his part, Andres Sajul testified9 that with regard to the transaction in question, he met Cayetano Gacilo in Bicol when the latter was repairing the LTO building in that province. He was transferred to the National Capital Region Office because of a reshuffling of Regional Directors. He did not choose Bato-Bato Enterprises to supply the needed fire extinguishers for the Central Office but actually learned that it had been its supplier for some time now which won in a competitive bidding in 1982 .

He averred that Lilia Cadores refused to sign the RIV and the PO because she had another supplier in mind. He relieved her of her post because of her refusal to sign the documents which was tantamount to insubordination. He did not conduct a bidding anymore because this was considered a negotiated contract.

Before he retired from office, he had accomplished a Clearance dated May 10,198810 to prove that he was cleared of all money and property accountabilities and certified to have no pending administrative/criminal case filed against him at his retirement. On July 31, 1998, the Sandiganbayan rendered the assailed decision with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ANDRES SAJUL y SOLO Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Section 3 paragraph G of R.A. 3019 and hereby imposes upon him, in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, pursuant to Section 9 thereof and Indeterminate prison term of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to TEN (10) YEARS as maximum with perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and to pay the cost. The facts from which the civil liability might arise not being indubitable there is no pronouncement as to the same. His bailbond is ordered canceled. SO ORDERED.11 Petitioner comes to this Court asserting that : 1. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT ACCUSED PERSONALLY BENEFITED FROM THE PURCHASE OF THE 23 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS IN QUESTION; 2. THE BELATED ZODIAC OFFER OF A LOWER PRICE DID NOT NECESSARILY MAKE THE PRICE OF THE QUESTIONED FIRE EXTINGUISERS EXORBITANT, AND CANNOT BE A LEGAL OR FAIR BASIS MUCH LESS A DEPENDABLE AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF OVERPRICING. 3. THAT THE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS IN QUESTION DID NOT CONTAIN "BCF" DID NOT MEAN THAT THE SAME WERE NOT GOOD FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND THAT THE SALE THEREOF TO THE GOVERNMENT WAS NECESSARILY "MANIFESTLY AND GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS" TO THE GOVERNMENT. 4. THE SUPPLIER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS THAT HE DELIVERED TO THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (LTO-NCR), AS INDICATED IN THE PURCHASE ORDER (PO), CONTAINED "BCF," AN IMPORTED COMPONENT OF A FIRE EXTINGUISHER, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMED THAT HIS FIRE EXTINGUISHERS CALLED THE "BCF HALOGENATED HYDRO CARBON," A LOCAL FORMULATION, WHICH WAS WHAT HE HAD BEEN SELLING AND DELIVERING TO THE VARIOUS LTO OFFICES SINCE 1982 AFTER WINNING A COMPETITIVE BIDDING IN THAT YEAR, ARE MUCH BETTER; 5. THAT THE SALE WAS A DIRECT PURCHASE OR NEGOTIATED CONTRACT SO THERE WAS ADMITTEDLY NO BIDDING; HOWEVER, THE PETITIONER AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR WAS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A NEGOTIATED CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE SAME. (EXHIBIT "9-B"). 6. THAT THERE WAS NO BIDDING DID NOT MAKE THE PURCHASE OF THE QUESTIONED FIRE EXTINGUISHERS "MANIFESTLY AND GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT." 7. THE REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 3 (G) OF REPUBLIC ACT 3019 THAT THE ACCUSED MUST HAVE ENTERED INTO A "MANIFESTLY AND GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS" CONTRACT, HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED BY THE PROSECUTION. 8. THE PROSECUTION MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER OF THE CRIME CHARGED AGAINST HIM BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.12 1 Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act under which petitioner was charged reads as follows: Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: x x x (g) Entering on behalf of the government into any contract or transaction, manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. x x x To sustain a conviction , it must be established that: (a) the accused is a public officer; (b) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and, (c) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.13 It is undisputed that petitioner, being then the Regional Director of Land Transportation Commission (now LTO) was a public officer at that time he entered into the subject negotiated contract for the purchase of 23 fire extinguishers for the use of the Central Office in LTO with Bato-Bato Enterprises. Whether or not the contract or transaction was grossly and manifestly injurious or disadvantageous to the government is the threshold question. The culpability of the petitioner was proven as the Sandiganbayan found that (1) the fire extinguishers purchased from Bato-Bato Enterprises did not contain the chemical component BCF allegedly contrary to its product description; (2) the price was exorbitant; and (3) petitioner did not comply with the usual standard procedure in the procurement of supplies, to the prejudice of the government. In finding that the subject fire extinguishers did not contain the component BCF, the Sandiganbayan relied on the "Analysis of Bromochlorodifluoromethane" as certified by Dr. Ana Maria Javellana, Acting Institute Director of the Philippine Institute of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Considering that no BCF was found, the Sandiganbayan concluded that the fire extinguishers supplied by the petitioner, were defective and thus, prejudicial to the government. The report of the PIPAC reads as follows: REPORT ON ANALYSIS OF BROMOCHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE