CUANAN v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 181999;183001           Hence, the threshold question we should resolve is whether the
SEPTEMBER 2, 2009
FACTS:
 It was alleged that petitioners purchased a total of 142,612 pieces
of "walis ting-ting” at either P25 per piece or P15 per piece without
complying with the requirements on Procurement and Public
Bidding, and the transactions were clearly grossly overpriced as
the actual cost per piece of the "walis ting-ting" was only P11.00
as found by the Commission on Audit (COA) Special Audit Team.
 The Sandiganbayan rendered judgment finding petitioners
Caunan and Marquez guilty of violating Section 3(g) of R.A. No.
3019.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are guilty of violation of Section
3(g) of R.A. No. 3019
HELD: NO.
 Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 provides:
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:
xxxx
(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.
 For a charge under Section 3(g) to prosper, the following elements
must be present: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he
entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government;
and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government.
 The presence of the first two elements of the crime is not disputed.
walis tingting purchase contracts were grossly and manifestly
injurious or disadvantageous to the government.
 The subject contracts would be grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government if characterized by an
overpriced procurement. However, the gross and manifest
disadvantage to the government was not sufficiently shown
because the conclusion of overpricing was erroneous since it was
not also adequately proven. Thus, we grant the petitions.
 In finding that the walis tingting purchase contracts were grossly
and manifestly disadvantageous to the government, the
Sandiganbayan relied on the COA’s finding of overpricing which
was, in turn, based on the special audit team’s report. The audit
team’s conclusion on the standard price of a walis tingting was
pegged on the basis of the following documentary and object
evidence: (1) samples of walis tingting without handle actually
used by the street sweepers; (2) survey forms on the walis tingting
accomplished by the street sweepers; (3) invoices from six
merchandising stores where the audit team purchased walis
tingting; (4) price listing of the DBM Procurement Service; and (5)
documents relative to the walis tingting purchases of Las Piñas
City.
 The evidence of the prosecution did not include a signed price
quotation from the walis tingting suppliers of Parañaque City. In
fact, even the walis tingting furnished the audit team by petitioners
and the other accused was different from the walis tingting actually
utilized by the Parañaque City street sweepers at the time of
ocular inspection by the audit team. At the barest minimum, the
evidence presented by the prosecution, in order to substantiate
the allegation of overpricing, should have been identical to the
walis tingting purchased in 1996-1998. Only then could it be
concluded that the walis tingting purchases were disadvantageous
to the government because only then could a determination have
been made to show that the disadvantage was so manifest and
gross as to make a public official liable under Section 3(g) of R.A.
No. 3019.