[] COA report was defective, according to COA’s own standard but presenting it to Sandiganbayan as it was didn’t kill the case for the state. What did was the failure during trial to present proof of the overprice.
[] Weakness of state’s case against Gungob, six town officials and one private individual ‘far outweighed some discrepancies’ in the evidence of the accused, rules anti-graft court.
[] Also acquitted were then municipal treasurer Rosalina Maglasang, agriculturist Evangeline Puao, engineer and BAC member Carlito Maglasang, SWD officer and BAC member Florisa Bagasbas, assessor and BAC member Marilou Herrera, BAC member Siegfred Cataluna, and private individual Marilyn Castillo. The eighth accused Lecelie Placibe, accountant, jumped bail, was issued an alias warrant, and her case archived.
THE Sandiganbayan fifth division -- in its decision promulgated Friday, February 16, 2024, written by Associate Justice Rafael R. Lagos -- said the prosecution “failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt” the crime of corruption under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Consolacion town’s purchase of 166 bottles of liquid fertilizer for P249,000 was overpriced, according to the complaint filed on December 8, 2005, was excessive by 733 percent or P219,120.
It took more than 18 years after the filing of the complaint for the justice system to resolve there wasn’t enough evidence to find anyone guilty.
[Other cases in which Gungob figured: [] February 2019, cleared by Sandiganbayan of charges for alleged illegal entry into the properties of private landowners in 2009 [] January 2020, convicted by Sandiganbayan of theft of three truckloads of limestone from a quarry in 2009]
THEIR DEFENSE. Mayor Gungob said he authorized payment, relying on the BAC or bidding committee recommendations and certifications of his municipal officers and he didn’t ascertain their truth although he was “obligated” to do as mayor and had the power to intervene at any stage of the bidding but chose not to.
Gungob said that, upon receipt of the Commission on Audit report, he had ordered BAC to demand refund of the amount paid to supplier MM Castillo General Merchandise, either from the said supplier or from the municipal officials responsible for the irregularity in the release of the money.
His job regarding disbursement of funds was only ministerial, Gungob said. Not true, but that issue of negligence -- Gungob’s and that of other accused town officials -- appeared to lend little influence on the ruling.
CORE OF THE RULING. In resolving whether the crime of corrupt practice under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 was committed by the accused, the Sandiganbayan (in People vs. Avelino J. Gungob Sr., et al, Crim. Case No. SB-17-CRM-0482) appeared to have focused on whether the was overpricing of the liquid fertilizers bought. If overpricing was proved, undue injury to the government and unwarranted benefit to the accused private individual were also proved.
The court said the second and third elements of the crime were not proved. There would be injury to the government and benefit to the supplier if there was overpricing. The finding: there “seems” to be overpricing but it’s not proved by the law’s standard.
COA REPORT ON WHICH CASE RESTED. The complaint and the prosecution were built on the findings of the Commission on Audit observation-memorandum of December 1, 2005 and testimony of COA officials who identified COA documents at the trial.
But the said COA report, the Sandiganbayan ruled, was flawed: there was no signed price quotation and/or canvass sheet attached to the inspection report, pursuant to CO Memo #97-102. “COA was not able to firm up its initial finding of finding to a reliable degree of certainty.”
THE ‘FATAL’ OMISSION. That was not the “fatal” failure, though. The prosecutors could’ve secured and presented during the trial “relevant price quotations and/or canvass sheets to support the allegation of overpricing.” The prosecution “failed to do so.”
If one looks for specific persons to blame: the one in charge of the COA report; the lead prosecutor in the trial.
INTER-LINKED EVIDENCE. The alleged “unwarranted benefit” to accused supplier Castillo, the ruling noted, was “premised” on the charge of over-pricing of the fertilizers by MM Castillo General Merchandise.
Overpricing, however, was “not conclusively established”; hence, the ruling said, there was “nothing to support the claim that Castillo derived unjustified gain or excessive profit from the transaction.”
There was also “no proof of irregularity that attended the procurement of fertilizers or demonstration of corrupt intent or dishonest design” by the Consolacion officials.