Abubakar v. People

Batangas Lawyers
One of the leading law !rms in the Calabarzon Region
abmlawo"ce.com OPEN
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
June 2018 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2018 > June 2018 Decisions
> G.R. No. 202408, June 27, 2018 - FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, Petitioner, v.
ChanRobles Professional PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 202409 - ULAMA S.
Review, Inc. BARAGUIR Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No.
202412 - DATUKAN M. GUIANI Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.:
G.R. No. 202408, June 27, 2018 - FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, Petitioner, v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 202409 - ULAMA S.
BARAGUIR Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No.
202412 - DATUKAN M. GUIANI Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Review
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 202408, June 27, 2018
FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.
G.R. No. 202409
ULAMA S. BARAGUIR Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.
ChanRobles CPA Review

Online G.R. No. 202412
DATUKAN M. GUIANI Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
The rules on competitive public bidding and those concerning the

disbursement of public funds are imbued with public interest. Government
officials whose work relates to these matters are expected to exercise greater
responsibility in ensuring compliance with the pertinent rules and regulations.
The doctrine allowing heads of offices to rely in good faith on the acts of their
subordinates is inapplicable in a situation where there are circumstances that
should have prompted the government officials to make further inquiries.
For this Court's resolution are three (3) consolidated Petitions for Review on
Certiorari1 concerning alleged anomalies in the implementation of

infrastructure projects within the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
ChanRobles Special Lecture (ARMM). The Petitions, separately docketed as G.R. Nos. 202408,2 202409,3
Series
and 202412,4 question the Sandiganbayan's December 8, 2011 Decision5 and
June 19, 2012 Resolution6 in Criminal Case Nos. 24963-24983. The assailed
judgments declared Farouk B. Abubakar (Abubakar) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of 10 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and
Ulama S. Baraguir (Baraguir) and Datukan M. Guiani (Guiani) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of 17 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.
3019.7
Abubakar, Baraguir, and Guiani were public officials of the Department of

Public Works and Highways in ARMM (DPWH-ARMM) when the offenses were
allegedly committed. Abubakar held the position of Director III,
Administrative, Finance Management Service. Baraguir was the Director of the
Bureau of Construction, Materials and Equipment, and a member of the Pre-
Qualification Bids and Awards Committee, while Guiani was the DPWH-ARMM
Regional Secretary.8
Guiani v. Sandiganbayan9 is the procedural antecedent of this case.
June-2018 Jurisprudence
After the creation of ARMM, the national government earmarked
P615,000,000.00 for the implementation of regional and provincial
G.R. No. 180845, June 06, infrastructure projects. In 1991, the funds were transferred to the Office of the
2018 - GOV. AURORA E. ARMM Regional Governor. Later, a portion of the funds was then transferred to
CERILLES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL DPWH-ARMM.10

SERVICE COMMISSION, ANITA
JANGAD-CHUA, MA. EDEN S. During the incumbency of then President Fidel V. Ramos (President Ramos),
TAGAYUNA, MERIAM the Office of the President received reports of irregularities attending the
CAMPOMANES, BERNADETTE P. implementation of the DPWH-ARMM infrastructure projects. The Commission
QUIRANTE, MA. DELORA P. on Audit was directed to conduct an investigation.11
FLORES AND EDGAR PARAN,
Respondents. Acting upon then President Ramos' instruction, the Commission on Audit
created a special audit team headed by Heidi L. Mendoza (Mendoza) to look
G.R. No. 196015, June 27, into the implementation of four (4) road concreting projects, namely: (1) the
2018 - RURAL BANK OF Cotabato-Lanao Road, Sections 1-13; (2) the Awang-Nuro Road; (3) the
MABITAC, LAGUNA, INC., Highway Linek-Kusiong Road; and (4) the Highway Simuay Seashore Road.12
REPRESENTED BY MRS. MARIA Physical inspections were conducted on October 15, 1992 to validate the
CECILIA S. TANAEL, Petitioner,
existence of the projects and the extent of their development.13
v. MELANIE M. CANICON AND
MERLITA L. ESPELETA,
The audit team made the following findings:14
Respondents.
First, an overpayment amounting to P17,684,000.00 was incurred on nine (9)

G.R. No. 194346, June 18,
road sections. The audit team discovered the existence of bloated
2018 - FERNANDO A.
accomplishment reports that allowed contractors to prematurely claim on their
MELENDRES, Petitioner, v.
OMBUDSMAN MA. progress billings.15
MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ
AND JOSE PEPITO M. AMORES, Second, advance payments totaling P14,400,000.00 were given to nine (9)
M.D., Respondents. contractors for the procurement of aggregate sub-base course in violation of
Section 88(l) of Presidential Decree No. 1445.16

G.R. No. 237428, June 19,
2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE Third, public bidding for the Cotabato-Lanao Road Project was done without a
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED detailed engineering survey.17 The bidding was reportedly conducted on
BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE January 14, 1992. However, the engineering survey was only completed
C. CALIDA, Petitioner, v. sometime in August 1992. The audit team also observed bidding irregularities
MARIA LOURDES P. A. in the Awang-Nuro Road Project and in six (6) road sections of the Cotabato-
SERENO, Respondent. Lanao Road Project. Public bidding for the two (2) projects was reportedly
conducted on January 14, 1992 but records disclose that the contractors
A.C. No. 10178, June 19, already mobilized their equipment as early as January 4 to 7, 1992.18
2018 - KIMELDES GONZALES,
Complainant, v. ATTY. PRISCO Lastly, the engineering survey for the centerline relocation and profiling of the
B. SANTOS, Respondent. Cotabato-Lanao Road, which cost P200,000.00, appeared to be unnecessary
due to the existence of a previous engineering survey. Furthermore, advance
G.R. No. 237487, June 27, payment was given to the contractor in excess of the limit provided under the
2018 - ALDRINE B.
implementing rules and regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1594.19
ILUSTRICIMO, Petitioner, v.
NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT,
Based on the report submitted by the Commission on Audit, the Office of the
INC./INTERNATIONAL CRUISE
Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause
SERVICES, LTD. AND/OR
to indict the regional officials of DPWH-ARMM for violation of Section 3(e) of
JOSEPHINE J. FRANCISCO,
Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. On July 31,
Respondents.
1998, 21 separate Informations were filed against Abubakar, Baraguir, Guiani,
and other officials of DPWH-ARMM. The consolidated cases were docketed as
G.R. No. 213914, June 06,
Criminal Case Nos. 24963-24983.20
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Charged in Criminal Case Nos. 24963 to 24969 were Guiani, Baraguir, and
Appellee, v. MANUEL FERRER Y
several other DPWH-ARMM officials for allegedly awarding projects to
REMOQUILLO A.K.A. "KANO,"
contractors without the required public bidding.21
KIYAGA MACMOD Y USMAN
A.K.A. "KIYAGA" AND DIMAS
Abubakar, Guiani, Baraguir, and two (2) employees of DPWH-ARMM were
MACMOD Y MAMA A.K.A.
charged in Criminal Case No. 24970 for allegedly awarding excessive
"DIMAS," Accused-Appellants.
mobilization fees to Arce Engineering Services.22
A.C. No. 11550, June 04,

2018 - MANUEL B. TROVELA, Guiani was charged in Criminal Case No. 24971 for entering into an
Complainant, v. MICHAEL B. unnecessary contract with Arce Engineering Services for the conduct of
ROBLES, ASSISTANT CITY another detailed engineering survey.23

PROSECUTOR; EMMANUEL L.
OBUNGEN, PROSECUTOR II; Abubakar, Baraguir, Guiani, and two (2) other officials of DPWH-ARMM were
JACINTO G. ANG, CITY charged in Criminal Case Nos. 24972, 24975 to 24980, and 24982 to 24983
PROSECUTOR; CLARO A. for allegedly advancing P14,400,000.00 to several contractors for sub-base
ARELLANO, PROSECUTOR aggregates.24
GENERAL; AND LEILA M. DE
LIMA, FORMER SECRETARY, Lastly, Abubakar, Baraguir, Guiani, and several other DPWH-ARMM officials
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, were charged in Criminal Case Nos. 24973, 24974, and 24981 for allegedly
Respondents. causing overpayment on several projects due to bloated accomplishment
reports.25
G.R. No. 192934, June 27,
2018 - SECURITY BANK All the Informations charged the accused with conspiracy except for Criminal
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
Case No. 24971.26
SPOUSES RODRIGO AND
ERLINDA MERCADO,
Upon arraignment, Abubakar, Baraguir, Guiani, and some of their co-accused
Respondents.; G.R. No.
entered a plea of not guilty. Seven (7) of their co-accused remained at large
197010, June 27, 2018 -
while one (1) died prior to the scheduled arraignment.27
SPOUSES RODRIGO AND
ERLINDA MERCADO, Petitioner,
During trial, the prosecution presented Leodivina A. De Leon (De Leon) and
v. SECURITY BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY, Respondent. Mendoza to testify on the findings of the Commission on Audit.28
G.R. No. 216728, June 04, De Leon testified on the alleged irregularities attending the bidding procedure.
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE She explained that some contractors were allowed to mobilize their equipment
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- even before the conduct of the bidding and the perfection of the contracts for
Appellee, v. DECITO six (6) road sections of the Cotabato-Lanao Road and the Awang-Nuro Road
FRANCISCO Y VILLAGRACIA, Projects.29

Accused-Appellant.
Mendoza testified on the alleged irregular payment scheme for the
G.R. No. 215732, June 06, procurement of sub-base aggregates. She stated that the concerned DPWH-
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE ARMM officials made it appear that they were requesting for the pre-payment
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- of cement. However, the disbursement vouchers indicate that the payment
Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER was made for the procurement of sub-base aggregates. The words "sub-base
BADILLOS, Accused- aggregates" were superimposed on the disbursement vouchers.30
Appellants.
After the prosecution rested its case, several of the accused filed their
A.C. No. 10267, June 18, respective Motions for Leave to file Demurrer to Evidence. These Motions were
2018 - HELEN GRADIOLA,* denied by the Sandiganbayan in its March 18, 2008 Resolution. The defense
Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMULO then proceeded to the presentation of its evidence.31
A. DELES, Respondent.
Presented as witnesses for the defense were some of the accused: (1) Nelfa
A.C. No. 11173 (Formerly M. Suasin (Suasin), an accountant of DPWH-ARMM; (2) Guialoson A.
CBD No. 13-3968), June 11, Mamogkat (Mamogkat), the DPWH-ARMM Director for Operations; (3) Taungan
2018 - RE: CA-G.R. CV NO. S. Masadag (Masandag), the DPWH-ARMM Regional Assistant Secretary and
96282 (SPOUSES BAYANI AND the designated Chair of the Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Committee; (4)
MYRNA M. PARTOZA VS. Abubakar; and (5) Baraguir. Commission on Audit's Records Custodian Nenita
LILIAN* B. MONTANO AND
V. Rama was also presented as a defense witness.32
AMELIA SOLOMON),
Complainant, v. ATTY. CLARO
Suasin testified that she consulted her superiors, particularly Abubakar,
JORDAN M. SANTAMARIA,
Baraguir, and Guiani, regarding the 30% mobilization fees awarded to Arce
Respondent.
Engineering Services. They explained to her that the mobilization fee was
increased as no other surveyor was willing to undertake the work due to the
G.R. No. 214940, June 06,
peace and order situation in the area. Suasin raised the same defense on the
2018 - MARIA DE LEON
P14,400,000.00 advance payment. She claimed that she signed the
TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
disbursement vouchers after seeking approval from her superiors. She also
REPRESENTED BY MA.
testified that the item typewritten on the disbursement vouchers was
VICTORIA D. RONQUILLO,
"cement" and not "sub-base aggregates."33
Petitioner, v. DANIEL M.
MACURAY, Respondent.
Mamogkat testified that DPWH-ARMM had to re-survey some areas of the
Cotabato-Lanao Road Project because they could no longer locate the
G.R. No. 223525, June 25,
reference points marked in the original survey. He denied the charge that
some contractors were overpaid, and attributed the discrepancy between the
audit team's report and DPWH-ARMM's report on several factors. He pointed
Appellee, v. BENEDICTO
out, among others, that the physical inspection conducted by the DPWH-ARMM
VEEDOR, JR. Y MOLOD A.K.A.
team was more extensive compared to the audit team's one (1)-day
"BRIX", Accused-Appellant.
inspection.34
A.C. No. 12011, June 26,

Masandag insisted that the Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Committee
2018 - NICANOR D. TRIOL,
followed the bidding procedure laid down in Presidential Decree No. 1594. He
Complainant, v. ATTY. DELFIN
denied knowledge and participation on the alleged early mobilization of
R. AGCAOILI, JR., Respondent.
contractors, and claimed that it was the Regional Secretary who authorized
A.M. No. RTJ-18-2523 the issuance of the certificates of mobilization.35
(Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 14-

4353-RTJ), June 06, 2018 - Abubakar claimed that he was only implicated due to the presence of his
EXTRA EXCEL INTERNATIONAL signature in the disbursement vouchers. He asserted that he examined the
PHILIPPINES, INC., supporting documents and the certifications made by the technical experts
REPRESENTED BY ATTY. before affixing his signature.36

ROMMEL V. OLIVA,
Complainant, v. HON. AFABLE Last to testify for the defense was Baraguir. He claimed that some contractors
E. CAJIGAL, PRESIDING took the risk of mobilizing their equipment before the conduct of public
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL bidding on the expectation that the winning bidders would sub-lease their
COURT, BRANCH 96, QUEZON equipment. He also testified that construction immediately began on some
CITY, Respondent. projects after the engineering survey to fast track the implementation of the
projects.37
G.R. No. 229645, June 06,
2018 - NORMA M. BALEARES, On December 8, 2011, the Sandiganbayan rendered judgment38 finding
DESIDERIO M. BALEARES, Guiani, Baraguir, and Masandag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven (7)
GERTRUDES B. CARIASA,
counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in Criminal Case
RICHARD BALEARES, JOSEPH
Nos. 24963 to 24969.39
BALEARES, SUSAN B. DELA
CRUZ, MA. JULIA B. RECTRA,
The Sandiganbayan held that Guiani, Baraguir, and Masandag conspired with
AND EDWIN BALEARES,
each other and gave unwarranted benefits, preference, and advantage to
Petitioners, v. FELIPE B.
seven (7) contractors by allowing them to deploy their equipment before the
ESPANTO, REP. BY MARCELA B.
scheduled public bidding. Records show that the public bidding for the
BALEARES, ATTORNEY-IN-
Cotabato-Lanao Road and Awang-Nuro Road Projects was conducted after the
FACT, Respondent.
issuance of the certificates of mobilization:40
G.R. No. 234651, June 06, Project

2018 - PEOPLE OF THE Contractor
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- Date of Certification
Appellee, v. BENITO LABABO Date of Bidding
ALIAS "BEN," WENEFREDO Date of Contract
LABABO, JUNIOR LABABO Awang-Nuro Road
(AL), AND FFF, Accused- HMB Construction and Supply
Appellants. Jan. 7, 1992
Jan. 14, 1992
G.R. No. 235511, June 20, Jan. 16, 1992
2018 - METROPOLITAN BANK Cotabato-Lanao Road Section 8
AND TRUST COMPANY, Kutawato Construction
Petitioner, v. JUNNEL'S Jan. 5, 1992
MARKETING CORPORATION, [Jan. 14, 1992]
PURIFICACION DELIZO, AND [Jan. 16, 1992]
BANK OF COMMERCE, [Cotabato-Lanao Road] Section 7
Respondents.; G.R. No. Al Mohandiz Construction
235565, June 20, 2018 - BANK Jan. 5, 1992
OF COMMERCE, Petitioner, v. [Jan. 14, 1992]
JUNNEL'S MARKETING [Jan. 16, 1992]
CORPORATION, PURIFICACION [Cotabato-Lanao Road] Section 2
DELIZO, AND METROPOLITAN JM Construction
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Jan. 7, 1992
Respondents. [Jan. 14, 1992]
[Jan. 16, 1992]
G.R. No. 234533, June 27, [Cotabato-Lanao Road] Section 5
2018 - SPOUSES JULIETA B. PMA Construction
CARLOS AND FERNANDO P. Jan. 6, 1992
CARLOS, Petitioners, v. JUAN [Jan. 14, 1992]
CRUZ TOLENTINO, Jan. 20, 1992
Respondent. [Cotabato-Lanao Road] Section 3
Al-Aziz-Engineering
A.C. No. 3951, June 19, Jan. 4, 1992
2018 - UNITED COCONUT [Jan. 14, 1992]
PLANTERS BANK, Complainant, Jan. 8, 1992
v. ATTY. LAURO G. NOEL, [Cotabato-Lanao Road] Section 1
Respondent. MGL Construction
Jan. 5, 1992
G.R. No. 204131, June 04, [Jan. 14, 1992]
2018 - SPOUSES JAIME AND Jan. 15, 199241
CATHERINE BASA, SPOUSES
According to the Sandiganbayan, HMB Construction and Supply, Kutawato
JUAN AND ERLINDA OGALE
REPRESENTED BY WINSTON Construction, Al Mohandiz Construction, JM Construction, PMA Construction,
Al-Aziz-Engineering, and MGL Construction were already identified as
OGALE, SPOUSES ROGELIO
contractors for the abovementioned projects even before the scheduled public
AND LUCENA LAGASCA
REPRESENTED BY LUCENA bidding. For instance, the certification issued to HMB Construction and Supply
stated:
LAGASCA, AND SPOUSES
CRESENCIO AND ELEADORA CERTIFICATION
APOSTOL, Petitioners, v.
ANGELINE LOY VDA. DE SENLY
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that HMB CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY,
LOY, HEIRS OF ROBERT
Contractor for the construction of AWANG-NURO, UPI ROAD,
CARANTES, THE REGISTER OF
had already mobilized a minimum number of equipments (sic)
DEEDS FOR BAGUIO CITY, AND necessary for the implementation of the said project.
THE CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
OF BAGUIO CITY,
This certification is being issued to HMB CONSTRUCTION AND
Respondents.
SUPPLY in connection with his legal claim under P.D. 1594 as stated
for the payment of fifteen (15) percent mobilization fee.
G.R. No. 219088, June 13,
Issued this 7th day of January, 1992.42 (Emphasis in the original)
Appellee, v. RONNIE DELA Similar certifications were issued to Kutawato Construction, Al Mohandiz
CRUZ A.K.A. "BAROK," Construction, JM Construction, PMA Construction, Al-Aziz Engineering, and
Accused-Appellant. MGL Construction.43
G.R. No. 223565, June 18, The Sandiganbayan rejected the defense's justification regarding the early
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE mobilization of these contractors, and underscored that no contractor would
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- risk mobilizing its equipment without any assurance that the projects would be
Appellee, v. JONATHAN PAL, awarded to it. Although a public bidding was actually conducted, the
THANIEL MAGBANTA, ALIAS
Sandiganbayan believed that it was done as a mere formality.44
DODONG MANGO [RON ARIES
DAGATAN CARIAT] AND ALIAS
TATAN CUTACTE, ACCUSED, Accused Guiani, Mamogkat, Abubakar, Baraguir, and Suasin were found guilty
RON ARIES DAGATAN CARIAT beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019
ALIAS DODONG MANGO, for causing the disbursement of30% of the mobilization fees or advance
Accused-Appellant. payment to Arce Engineering Services.45
G.R. No. 191622, June 06, Accused Guiani was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 24971 for his alleged act of
2018 - ILUMINADA BATAC, entering into a second detailed engineering survey. The Sandiganbayan held
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE that the second survey was indispensable because the reference points in the
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. original survey could no longer be found. The prosecution failed to prove that
accused Guiani exhibited manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
A.M. No. 2011-05-SC, June
inexcusable negligence in hiring Arce Engineering Services.46
19, 2018 - RE: DECEITFUL
CONDUCT OF IGNACIO S. DEL
The Sandiganbayan convicted accused Guiani, Mamogkat, Abubakar, Baraguir,
ROSARIO, CASH CLERK III,
and Suasin of nine (9) counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.
RECORDS AND
3019 for facilitating the advance payment for the procurement of sub-base
MISCELLANEOUS MATTER
aggregates.47 It characterized the P14,400,000.00 disbursement as an
SECTION, CHECKS
advance payment and not as pre-payment for construction materials. First,
DISBURSEMENT DIVISION,
the disbursement was given directly to the contractor and not to the suppliers.
FMO-OCA, IGNACIO S. DEL
Second, there were no written requests from the contractors who wished to
ROSARIO, Petitioner.
avail of the pre-payment facility. Third, under Department Order No. 42 of the
Department of Public Works and Highways, only cement, reinforcing steel
G.R. No. 205953, June 06,
bars, and asphalt may be procured under a pre-payment scheme.48 Thus, the
2018 - DIONELLA A. GOPIO,
P14,400,000.00 disbursement could not be considered as pre-payment for
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
construction materials.
NAME AND STYLE, JOB ASIA
MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
The Sandiganbayan concluded that the disbursement was an advance
Petitioner, v. SALVADOR B.
payment and declared it illegal because there were no documents to prove
BAUTISTA, Respondents.
that the items were actually delivered. It cited Section 88(1) of Presidential
G.R.No. 202324, June 04, Decree No. 1445 as legal basis.49
2018 - CONCHITA GLORIA

AND MARIA LOURDES GLORIA- Guiani, Baraguir, Abubakar, and Mamogkat were acquitted in Criminal Case
PAYDUAN, Petitioners, v. Nos. 24973, 24974, and 24981 for allegedly causing the overpayment on
BUILDERS SAVINGS AND several projects due to bloated accomplishment reports. The Sandiganbayan
LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., gave more credence to DPWH-ARMM's accomplishment report over the audit
Respondent. team's report. First, the standards used by each team varied. Second, DPWH-
ARMM's inspection was more extensive.50

G.R. No. 190324, June 06,
2018 - PHILIPPINE PORTS The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan's December 8, 2011 Decision
AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. THE stated:
CITY OF DAVAO,
WHEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court
SANGGUNIANG
hereby renders judgment as follows:
PANGLUNGSOD NG DAVAO
CITY, CITY MAYOR OF DAVAO
1. In Criminal Cases No. 24963, No. 24964, No. 24965, No. 24966,
CITY, CITY TREASURER OF
No. 24967, No. 24968 and No. 24969, the Court finds accused
DAVAO CITY, CITY ASSESSOR
DATUKAN M. GUIANI, TAUNGAN S. MASANDAG and ULAMA S.
OF DAVAO CITY, AND CENTRAL
BARAGUIR GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of seven (7) counts
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
of violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, and pursuant to Section 9
APPEALS (CBAA),
thereof, are hereby sentenced to suffer for each count the
Respondents.
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1)
month as minimum, up to ten (10) years as maximum, with
G.R. No. 234616, June 20,
perpetual disqualification from public office.
2018 - PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
2. In Criminal Case No. 24970, the Court finds accused DATUKAN
Petitioner, v. MANU GIDWANI,
M. GUIANI, GUIALOSON A. MAMOGKAT, FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR,
Respondent.
ULAMA S. BARAGUIR AND NELFA M. SUASIN GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019, and hereby
G.R. No. 200630, June 04,
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of
2018 - KIM LIONG, Petitioner,
six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum, up to ten (10) years
v. PEOPLE OF THE
as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office.
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
3. In Criminal Case No. 24971, for failure of the prosecution to

G.R. No. 204307, June 06,
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused DATUKAN M.
2018 - ORIENT HOPE
GUIANI is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense of violation of Sec. 3
AGENCIES, INC. AND/OR ZEO
(e) of RA 3019.
MARINE CORPORATION,
Petitioners, v. MICHAEL E.
JARA, Respondent. Considering that the act or omission from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist, no civil liability may be assessed against
G.R. No. 215111, June 20, the accused.
2018 - ABOSTA
SHIPMANAGEMENT The hold departure order issued against him by reason of this case
CORPORATION, PANSTAR is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and his bond ordered RELEASED.
SHIPPING CO., LTD., AND/OR
GAUDENCIO MORALES, 4. In Criminal Cases No. 24972, No. 24975, No. 24976, No. 24977,
Petitioners, v. RODEL D. No. 24978, No. 24979, No. 24980, No. 24982 and No. 24983, the
DELOS REYES, Respondent. Court finds accused DATUKAN M. GUIANI, GUIALOSON A.
MAMOGKAT, FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, ULAMA S. BARAGUIR and
G.R. No. 233702, June 20, NELFA M. SUASIN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of nine (9)
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE counts of violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 and, pursuant to
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- Section 9 thereof, are hereby sentenced to suffer for each count
Appellee, v. MANUEL GAMBOA the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one
Y FRANCISCO @ "KUYA," (1) month as minimum, up to ten (10) years as maximum, with
Accused-Appellant. perpetual disqualification from public office.
G.R. No. 214053, June 06, 5. In Criminal Case No. 24973, for failure of the prosecution to
2018 - TEODORICO CASTILLO, prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused DATUKAN M.
ALICE CASTILLO, AND ST. GUIANI, ULAMA S. BARAGUIR, FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, GUIALOSON
EZEKIEL SCHOOL, INC., A. MAMOGKAT, NASSER G. SINARIMBO, MANGONDA YA A. MADID
Petitioners, v. BANK OF THE and SALIK ALI are hereby ACQUITTED of the offense of violation
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.
Respondent.
Considering that the act or omission from which the civil liability
G.R. No. 227394, June 06, might arise did not exist, no civil liability may be assessed against
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE the accused.
Appellee, v. NORJANA SOOD Y The hold departure order issued against them by reason of this
AMATONDIN, Accused- case is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and their bonds ordered
Appellant. RELEASED.
A.C. No. 12156, June 20, 6. In Criminal Case No. 24974, for failure of the prosecution to
2018 - PAULINO LIM, prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused DATUKAN M.
Complainant, v. ATTY. GUIANI, TAUNGAN S. MASANDAG, ULAMA S. BARAGUIR, FAROUK
SOCRATES R. RIVERA, B. ABUBAKAR, GUIALOSON A. MAMOGKAT, MANGONDA YA A.
Respondent. MADID, SALIK ALI, NASSER G. SINARIMBO, EMRAN B. BUISAN,
BEVERLY GRACE D. VILLAR and ROMMEL A. GALINDO are hereby
G.R. No. 189792, June 20, ACQUITTED of the offense of violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.
2018 - COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Considering that the act or omission from which the civil liability
Petitioner, v. CEBU HOLDINGS, might arise did not exist, no civil liability may be assessed against
INC., Respondent. the accused.
G.R. No. 229787, June 20, The hold departure order issued against them by reason of this
2018 - RICKY ANYAYAHAN Y case is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and their bonds ordered
TARONAS, Petitioner, v. RELEASED.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. 7. In Criminal Case No. 24981, for failure of the prosecution to
prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused DATUKAN M.
G.R. No. 218413, June 06, GUIANI, FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, ULAMA S. BARAGUIR, GUIALOSON
2018 - FELICIANO S. PASOK, A. MAMOGKAT, BAHAMA A. ANDAR, PENDATUN JAUHALI, EMRAN B.
JR., Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF BUISAN, NAZER P. EBUS and RONEL C. QUESADA are hereby
THE OMBUDSMAN–MINDANAO ACQUITTED of the offense of violation of Sec. 3 (e) RA 3019.
AND REX Y. DUA,
Respondents. Considering that the act or omission from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist, no civil liability may be assessed against
G.R. No. 204183, June 20, the accused.
2018 - BARANGAY TONGONAN,
ORMOC CITY, REPRESENTED The hold departure order issued against them by reason of this
BY ITS PUNONG BARANGAY, case is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and their bonds ordered
ISAGANI R. BAÑEZ, Petitioner, RELEASED.
v. HON. APOLINARIO M.
BUAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ....
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 35, SO ORDERED.51 (Emphasis in the original)
ORMOC CITY, CITY Abubakar and Baraguir filed their respective motions for new trial and
GOVERNMENT OF ORMOC, reconsideration on separate dates. They anchored their prayer for new trial on
REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, the alleged incompetence of their former counsel. Guiani, Suasin, and
HONORABLE ERIC C. CODILLA, Mamogkat also moved for reconsideration.52 In their motions, accused Guiani
THE MUNICIPALITY OF
and Baraguir invoked the application of the Arias53 doctrine.54
KANANGA, LEYTE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR,
On June 19, 2012, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Resolution55 denying the
HONORABLE GIOVANNI M.
motions for new trial and reconsideration for lack of merit.56
NAPARI, AND PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Abubakar, Baraguir, and Guiani filed their respective Petitions for Review
CORP.* (PNOC-EDC),
before this Court questioning the December 8, 2011 Decision and June 19,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
2012 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan. The petitions were consolidated on
PRESIDENT MR. PAUL AQUINO,
Respondents. January 21, 2013.57
G.R. No. 200223, June 06, Respondents the Honorable Sandiganbayan, the People of the Philippines, and
2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed, through the Office of the Special
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. Prosecutor, their consolidated Comment,58 to which petitioners Abubakar and
LAKAMBINI C. JABSON, Baraguir filed their respective Replies.59 Due to petitioner Guiani's repeated
PARALUMAN C. JABSON, failure to submit the required reply, this Court dispensed with its filing.
MAGPURI C. JABSON, MANUEL
C. JABSON III, EDGARDO C. Petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir maintain that they are entitled to a new
JABSON, RENATO C. JABSON, trial due to their former counsel's incompetence and negligence. They claim
NOEL C. JABSON, AND that aside from simply adopting the evidence submitted by their co-accused,
NESTOR C. JABSON, their former counsel also failed to present and to formally offer relevant
REPRESENTED BY LAKAMBINI evidence that would exonerate them from liability. Petitioners Abubakar and
C. JABSON, ATTORNEY-IN- Baraguir believe that they were deprived of the opportunity to fully present
FACT, Respondents.
their case60 and to claim that the following documents should have been
presented before the Sandiganbayan:
G.R. No. 218269, June 06,
2018 - IN RE: APPLICATION
(1)
FOR LAND REGISTRATION,
Original copies of the assailed disbursement vouchers proving that the entries
SUPREMA T. DUMO, Petitioner,
were for cement and not for sub-base aggregates;61
v. REPUBLIC OF THE
(2)
The testimony of handwriting experts who would confirm their defense;62
(3)
G.R. No. 228960, June 11,
Written requests of contractors who wished to avail of the prepayment scheme
for the procurement of cement to prove compliance with DPWH Department
Appellee, v. JUNREL R. Order No. 42;63
VILLALOBOS, Accused- (4)
Appellants. Original copy of the February 17, 1992 DPWH Memorandum issued by the
former DPWH Regional Secretary requiring petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir
G.R. No. 205925, June 20, to sign Box 3 of the disbursement vouchers;64
2018 - BASES CONVERSION (5)
AND DEVELOPMENT The Personnel Data Files of petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir, the Contract of
AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. Services of petitioner Abubakar, and the Appointment of petitioner Baraguir to
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL prove that their employment was temporary or contractual in nature, and to
REVENUE, Respondent. prove that their duties did not require "the exercise of judgment or
discretion";65 and
G.R. No. 228504, June 06, (6)
2018 - PHILSYNERGY The Department of Trade and Industry Certification on the scarcity of cement
MARITIME, INC. AND/OR to prove that pre-payment was necessary.66
TRIMURTI SHIPMANAGEMENT
LTD., Petitioners, v. Petitioner Abubakar adds that copies of several disbursement vouchers should
COLUMBANO PAGUNSAN
have been presented to prove that his signatures were unnecessary.67 These
GALLANO, JR., Respondent.
disbursement vouchers,68 which do not bear his name or signature, should
have been formally offered in Criminal Case Nos. 24972, 24979, 24980,
G.R. No. 224327, June 11,
24982, and 24983.69
2018 - COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
Petitioner Baraguir believes that other documents should have been formally
Petitioner, v. BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, offered, including:
Respondent.
[a] The invitation to bid to prove that the projects were published
for public bidding;
G.R. No. 222497, June 27,
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- [b] The actual bids to prove that an actual bidding took place;
Appellee, v. PEDRO RUPAL,
Accused-Appellant. [c] The Notices of Award issued by the Regional Secretary to prove
that the projects were awarded to the lowest bidders;
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2460, June
27, 2018 - ATTY. JEROME [d] The Notices to Commence issued by the Regional Secretary to
NORMAN L. TACORDA AND prove that the winning contractor cannot start the project yet until
LETICIA RODRIGO-DUMDUM, the latter has received the same.70
Complainants, v. JUDGE PERLA
On the other hand, respondents, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor,
V. CABRERA-FALLER,
assert that petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir are not entitled to a new trial.
EXECUTIVE JUDGE, AND
OPHELIA G. SULUEN, As a rule, clients are bound by the acts of their counsel. Mistakes committed
due to a counsel's incompetence or inexperience cannot justify the grant of a
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/LEGAL
RESEARCHER II, BOTH OF new trial. Otherwise, there would be no end to litigation.71
BRANCH 90, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, DASMARIÑAS CITY, Aside from this, petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir assert that their right to
CAVITE, Respondents. equal protection was violated due to "selective prosecution." Only a handful of
DPWH-ARMM officials were charged of violation of Republic Act No. 3019.
G.R. No. 217301, June 06, Several employees who allegedly participated in the preparation of project
2018 - CONSOLIDATED documents were not indicted.72
BUILDING MAINTENANCE,
INC. AND SARAH DELGADO, Respondents counter that petitioners' claim of selective prosecution will not
Petitioners, v. ROLANDO prosper as there is no proof of "clear showing of intentional discrimination"
ASPREC, JR. AND JONALEN against them.73
BATALLER, Respondents.
With regard to the alleged early mobilization of contractors prior to the

G.R. No. 219670, June 27, scheduled public bidding, petitioner Baraguir asserts that he has neither
2018 - J.V. LAGON REALTY favored nor given arty unwarranted benefit to any contractor. He asserts that
CORP., REPRESENTED BY the risk-taking strategy of some contractors in choosing to mobilize their
NENITA L. LAGON IN HER equipment ahead of public bidding is beyond the control of the Pre-
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT, Qualification Bids and Awards Committee. Furthermore, he did not prepare the
Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF
certificates of mobilization.74 Petitioner Guiani also denies giving unwarranted
LEOCADIA VDA. DE TERRE,
benefits to certain parties.75 He claims that the certificates of mobilization, on
NAMELY: PURIFICACION T.
which the prosecution heavily relies, prove nothing.76
BANSILOY, EMILY T. CAMARAO,
AND DOMINADOR A. TERRE,
Further, petitioner Abubakar argues that the Contract for Survey Work
AS REPRESENTED BY
executed by petitioner Guiani and a certain Engineer Ricardo Arce served as
DIONISIA T. CORTEZ,
the basis for the advance payment given to Arce Engineering Services. The
Respondents.
Contract for Survey Work explicitly stated that Arce Engineering Services
would immediately be entitled to 30% of the contract price upon the contract's
G.R. No. 229380, June 06,
execution. Thus, he had no other choice but to approve the disbursement.
2018 - LENIZA REYES Y
Furthermore, he claims that petitioner Guiani's acquittal in Criminal Case No.
CAPISTRANO, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 24971 should be considered in his favor.77 Petitioner Baraguir raises a similar
Respondent. defense. He argues that he relied in good faith on the contract entered into by
petitioner Guiani with Arce Engineering Services.78

G.R. No. 209085, June 06,
2018 - NICANOR F. MALCABA, Petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir add that they are entitled to the justifying
CHRISTIAN C. NEPOMUCENO, circumstance under Article 11(6) of the Revised Penal Code for relying on the
AND LAURA MAE FATIMA F. Contract for Survey Work.79
PALIT-ANG, Petitioners, v.
PROHEALTH PHARMA As to the P14,400,000.00 disbursement for sub-base aggregates, petitioner
PHILIPPINES, INC., GENEROSO Abubakar argues that his signatures on the disbursement vouchers have no
R. DEL CASTILLO, JR., AND bearing and were affixed on them as a formality pursuant to DPWHARMM
DANTE M. BUSTO,
Memorandum80 dated February 17, 1992.81 Petitioner Baraguir, on the other
Respondents.
hand, insists that "cement" was indicated on the disbursement vouchers and
that there were no traces of alterations or superimpositions at the time he
G.R. No. 224290, June 11,
affixed his signature.82
Throughout their pleadings, petitioners invoke good faith as a defense. They
Appellee, v. VICENTE SIPIN Y
claim that they relied on the representations and assurances of their
DE CASTRO, Accused-
subordinates who were more versed on technical matters.83 Petitioner Guiani,
Appellants.
in particular, asserts that the Sandiganbayan should have applied the Arias
doctrine in this case. He should not have been penalized for relying on the
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2454, June
acts of his subordinates, which he presumed were done in accordance with
06, 2018 - PHILIP SEE,
Complainant, v. JUDGE law.84
ROLANDO G. MISLANG,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL Respondents disagree and claim that the Arias doctrine is inapplicable. They
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 167, assert that petitioners cannot claim good faith as they were fully aware of the
PASIG CITY, Respondent. bidding irregularities. The evidence presented by the prosecution show that
certificates of mobilization were issued prior to the conduct of actual public
G.R. No. 202113, June 06, bidding. Further, petitioners cannot claim good faith in allowing Arce
2018 - RICKY B. TULABING, Engineering Services to claim 30% as advance payment considering that they
Petitioner, v. MST MARINE knew of the 15% limitation.85
SERVICES (PHILS.), INC., TSM
INTERNATIONAL LTD., AND/OR Meanwhile, petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir assert that the government did
CAPT. ALFONSO R. DEL not suffer undue injury considering that the projects in dispute have already
CASTILLO, Respondent.; G.R. been completed. They argue that undue injury, in the context of Republic Act
No. 202120, June 06, 2018 - No. 3019, has been equated by this Court with the civil law concept of actual
MST MARINE SERVICES damages. They believe that the prosecution failed to substantiate the actual
(PHILS.), INC., TSM
injury sustained by the government.86
INTERNATIONAL LTD., AND/OR
CAPT. ALFONSO R. DEL
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that a violation of Section 3(e) of
CASTILLO, Petitioners, v.
Republic Act No. 3019 may be committed in two (2) ways, namely: by causing
RICKY B. TULABING,
any undue injury to a party, or by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or
Respondent.
preference to any party.87
G.R. No. 224626, June 27,

This case presents the following issues for this Court's resolution:
First, whether or not petitioners Farouk B. Abubakar and Ulama S. Baraguir
Appellee, v. YYY, Accused-
are entitled to a new trial for the alleged incompetence of their former
Appellant.
counsel;
G.R. No. 223566, June 27,

Second, whether or not the right of petitioners Farouk B. Abubakar and Ulama
S. Baraguir to the equal protection of the laws was violated due to "selective
prosecution";
Appellee, v. JUNIE (OR
DIONEY) SALVADOR, SR. Y
Third, whether or not the prosecution was able to establish petitioners Farouk
MASAYANG, Accused-
B. Abubakar, Ulama S. Baraguir, and Datukan M. Guiani 's guilt beyond
Appellant.
reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019; and
G.R. No. 224849, June 06,

Finally, whether or not petitioners Farouk B. Abubakar, Ulama S. Baraguir, and
2018 - HEIRS OF ERNESTO
Datukan M. Guiani should be exonerated from criminal liability based on the
MORALES, NAMELY: ROSARIO
Arias doctrine.
M. DANGSALAN, EVELYN M.
SANGALANG, NENITA M.
I
SALES, ERNESTO JOSE
MORALES, JR., RAYMOND
Lawyers act on behalf of their clients with binding effect.88 This is the
MORALES, AND MELANIE
necessary consequence of the fiduciary relationship created between a lawyer
MORALES, Petitioners, v.
and a client. Once engaged, a counsel holds "the implied authority to do all
ASTRID MORALES AGUSTIN,
acts which are necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and
REPRESENTED BY HER
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, EDGARDO management of the suit."89 The acts of counsel are deemed acts of the client.
TORRES, Respondent.
Thus, as a rule, parties are bound by the acts, omissions, and mistakes of
G.R. No. 220141, June 27, their counsel.90 To adopt a contrary principle may lead to unnecessary delays,
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE indefinite court proceedings, and possibly no end to litigation for all that a
PHILIPPINES Plaintiff-Appellee, defeated party would do is to claim .that his or her counsel acted
v. ARNULFO BALENTONG negligently.91 An exception to this is when the gross and inexcusable
BERINGUIL, Accused- negligence of counsel deprives the latter's client of his or her day in court. The
Appellant. allegation of gross and inexcusable negligence, however, must be
substantiated.92 In determining whether the case falls under the exception,

G.R. No. 194455, June 27,
courts should always be guided by the principle that parties must be "given
2018 - SPOUSES AVELINA
the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of [their] action or defense."93
RIVERA-NOLASCO AND
EDUARDO A. NOLASCO,
The general rule on the binding effect of counsel's acts and omissions has
Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF
been applied with respect to applications for a new trial. In U.S. v. Umali:94
PANDI, INC., Respondent.
In criminal as well as in civil cases, it has frequently been held that

G.R. No. 213918, June 27, the fact that blunders and mistakes may have been made in the
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE conduct of the proceedings in the trial court, as a result of the
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- ignorance, inexperience, or incompetence of counsel, does not
Appellee, v. EVANGELINE furnish a ground for a new trial.
ABELLA Y SEDEGO AND MAE
ANN SENDIONG, Accused- ....
Appellants.
So it has been held that mistakes of attorneys as to the
G.R. No. 196681, June 27, competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy, materiality, or
2018 - CITY OF MANILA AND immateriality of certain evidence, the proper defense, or the
OFFICE OF THE CITY burden of proof are not proper grounds for a new trial; and in
TREASURER OF MANILA, general the client is bound by the action of his counsel in the
Petitioners, v. COSMOS conduct of his case, and can not be heard to complain that the
BOTTLING CORPORATION, result of the litigation might have been different had counsel
Respondent. proceeded differently.95 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Liberality has been applied in criminal cases but under exceptional

A.M. No. P-16-3586
(Formerly A.M. No. 14-4-43- circumstances. Given that a person's liberty is at stake in a criminal case,
MCTC), June 05, 2018 - Umali concedes that the strict application of the general rule may lead to a
OFFICE OF THE COURT manifest miscarriage of justice.96 Thus, appropriate relief may be accorded to
ADMINISTRATOR, a defendant who has shown a meritorious defense and who has satisfied the
Complainant, v. CLERK OF court that acquittal would follow after the introduction of omitted evidence:
COURT II MICHAEL S. CALIJA,
It must be admitted, however, that courts of last resort have
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
occasionally relaxed the strict application of this rule in criminal
COURT (MCTC), DINGRAS--
cases, where the defendants, having otherwise a good case, were
MARCOS, ILOCOS NORTE,
able to satisfy the court that acquittal would in all probability have
Respondent.
followed the introduction of certain testimony, which was not
submitted at the trial under improper or injudicious advice of
G.R. No. 218947, June 20,
incompetent counsel.97
In De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan,98 the accused was convicted based solely
Appellee, v. REY ANGELES Y
on the testimony of the prosecution's witness. The accused was unable to
NAMIL Accused-Appellant.
present any evidence due to his counsel's insistence in filing a demurrer to
evidence despite the Sandiganbayan's denial of the motion for leave to file
G.R. Nos. 211820-21, June
it.99 This was considered by this Court as gross negligence:
06, 2018 - KENSONIC, INC.,
Petitioner, v. UNI-LINE MULTI- Petitioner's present dilemma is certainly not something reducible to
RESOURCES, INC., (PHIL.), pesos and centavos. No less than his liberty is at stake here. And
Respondent.; G.R. Nos. he is just about to lose it simply because his former lawyers
211834-35, June 06, 2018 - pursued a carelessly contrived procedural strategy of insisting on
UNI-LINE MULTI-RESOURCES, what has already become an imprudent remedy, as aforediscussed,
INC., Petitioner, v. KENSONIC, which thus forbade petitioner from offering his evidence all the
INC., Respondent. while available for presentation before the Sandiganbayan. Under
the circumstances, higher interests of justice and equity demand
G.R. No. 228960, June 11, that petitioner be not penalized for the costly importunings of his
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE previous lawyers based on the same principles why this Court had,
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- on many occasions where it granted new trial, excused parties
Appellee, v. JUNREL R. from the negligence or mistakes of counsel. To cling to the general
VILLALOBOS, Accused- rule in this case is only to condone rather than rectify a serious
Appellant. injustice to petitioners whose only fault was to repose his faith and
entrust his innocence to his previous lawyers. Consequently, the
G.R. No. 222559, June 06, receipts and other documents constituting his evidence which he
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE failed to present in the Sandiganbayan are entitled to be
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- appreciated, however, by that forum and not this Court, for the
Appellee, v. JENNIFER GA-A Y general rule is that we are not triers of facts. Without prejudging
CORONADO, Accused; AQUILA the result of such appreciation, petitioner's documentary evidences
"PAYAT" ADOBAR, Accused- prima facie appear strong when reckoned with the lone prosecution
Appellant. witness Angeles' testimony, indicating that official training
programs were indeed actually conducted and that the
G.R. No. 218806, June 13, P200,000.00 cash advance he received were spent entirely for
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE those programs.100 (Citation omitted)
Appellee, v. GLORIA NANGCAS Similarly, in Callangan v. People of the Philippines,101 the accused was unable
Accused-Appellant. to present any evidence. This Court, in granting new trial, characterized the
"chronic inaction of [the accused's] counsel on important incidents and stages
G.R. No. 226002, June 25, of the criminal proceedings" as a denial of due process:102
2018 - LINO A. FERNANDEZ,
The omissions of petitioner's counsel amounted to an abandonment
JR., Petitioner, v. MANILA
or total disregard of her case. They show conscious indifference to
ELECTRIC COMPANY
or utter disregard of the possible repercussions to his client. Thus,
(MERALCO), Respondent.
the chronic inaction of petitioner's counsel on important incidents
G.R. No. 211876, June 25, and stages of the criminal proceedings constituted gross
2018 - ASIAN TERMINALS, negligence.
INC., Petitioner, v. PADOSON
STAINLESS STEEL The RTC itself found that petitioner never had the chance to
CORPORATION, Respondent. present her defense because of the nonfeasance (malfeasance,
even) of her counsel. It also concluded that, effectively, she was
G.R. No. 231884, June 27, without counsel. Considering these findings, to deprive petitioner of
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE her liberty without affording her the right to be assisted by counsel
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- is to deny her due process.103
Appellee, v. MICHELLE PARBA-
In one occasion, this Court allowed the presentation of additional evidence
RURAL AND MAY ALMOHAN-
DAZA, Accused-Appellants. even if the accused initially adduced evidence during trial. This level
ofliberality, however, is conditioned upon a finding that the introduction of
G.R. No. 229678, June 20, omitted evidence would probably alter the result of the case.

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- In Abrajano v. Court of Appeals,104 this Court remanded the case to the trial
Appellee, v. HERMINIO VIDAL, court for the conduct of new trial to allow the accused to present additional
JR. Y UAYAN @ "PATO," evidence. The same standard in Umali was applied:
ARNOLD DAVID Y CRUZ @

Nevertheless, courts of last resort have occasionally relaxed the
"ANOT," CIPRIANO REFREA,
strict application of the rule that the acts of counsel bind the client
JR. Y ALMEDA @ "COBRA,"
in criminal cases, where the defendants, having otherwise a good
RICARDO H. PINEDA @
case were able to satisfy the Court that acquittal would in all
"PETER," EDWIN R.
probability have followed the introduction of certain testimonies,
BARQUEROS @ "MARVIN,"
which were not submitted at the trial under improper or injudicious
AND DANIEL YASON@ "ACE,"
advi[c]e of incompetent counsel. While conceding that these cases
Accused.; HERMINIO VIDAL,
are extremely rare, the Court, in United States v. Umali, allowed
JR. Y UAYAN @ "PATO," AND
for the relaxation of the rule. Where there are very exceptional
ARNOLD DAVID Y CRUZ @
circumstances, and where a review of the whole record taken
"ANOT," Accused-Appellants.
together with the evidence improvidently omitted would clearly
justify the conclusion that the omission had resulted in the
G.R. No. 206992, June 11,
conviction of one innocent of the crime charged, a new trial may be
2018 - LAND BANK OF THE
granted.
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
HEREDEROS DE CIRIACO
....
CHUNACO DISTILERIA, INC.,
Respondent.
In the case at bar, the circumstance that petitioner allegedly used
the name "Carmen" in her first marriage instead ofCarmelita,
G.R. No. 207004, June 06,
together with the affidavits she submitted, particularly those of
2018 - ASTRID A. VAN DE
Mrs. Priscila Alimagno, supposedly a witness to Carmen's marriage
BRUG, MARTIN G. AGUILAR
to Mauro Espinosa, and petitioner's sister Jocelyn Gilbuena, who
AND GLENN G. AGUILAR,
attested that Carmen is indeed their half-sister, would in our mind
Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE
probably alter the result of this case. A new trial is therefore
NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.
necessary if justice is to be served.105 (Citations omitted)
G.R. No. 195999, June 20, Given this standard, this Court holds that petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir
2018 - LILY S. VILLAMIL, are not entitled to a new trial.
SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS
RUDY E. VILLAMIL, SOLOMON First, they failed to convince this Court that they have a meritorious defense
E. VILLAMIL, TEDDY E. and that the evidence they seek to introduce would probably lead to their
VILLAMIL, JR., DEBORAH E. acquittal.
VILLAMIL, FLORENCE E.
VILLAMIL, GENEVIEVE E. The present case does not involve the same factual circumstances in De
VILLAMIL, AND MARC Guzman or in Callangan where the accused were absolutely denied the
ANTHONY E. VILLAMIL, opportunity to present evidence due to the actuations of their counsels. In
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES those cases, it was just and reasonable for this Court to take a much more
JUANITO ERGUIZA AND MILA liberal stance considering that there was a denial of due process. The same
ERGUIZA, Respondents. kind of liberality, however, cannot be applied here. Petitioners Abubakar and
Baraguir, through counsel, presented their evidence and made out their case
A.C. No. 11396, June 20, before the Sandiganbayan. Based on Umali and Abrajano, it is incumbent upon
2018 - FRANCO B. GONZALES, them to present a meritorious defense and to convince this Court that the
Complainant, v. ATTY. DANILO evidence omitted by their former counsel would probably alter the results of
B. BAÑARES, Respondent. the case. They cannot simply allege that they were deprived of due process or
that their defense was not fully threshed out during trial.
G.R. No. 217916, June 20,
2018 - ABS-CBN PUBLISHING, Petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir failed to discharge this burden.
INC., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR
OF THE BUREAU OF Petitioners seek to introduce as evidence their personnel data files, contracts
TRADEMARKS, Respondent. of service, and appointment papers to prove that they were engaged in a
temporary capacity. These documents would certainly not alter the results of
G.R. No. 219963, June 13, the case. Regardless of the nature of their employment, petitioners are
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE required to abide by the rules and regulations on public bidding and
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appelle, disbursement of public funds.
v. RICARDO TANGLAO Y
EGANA, Accused-Appellant. Testimony of handwriting experts, original copies of disbursement vouchers,
and written requests of contractors who wished to avail of the prepayment
A.C. No. 3921, June 11, scheme under DPWH Department Order No. 42 would probably not change the
2018 - DELFINA HERNANDEZ finding on the irregularities pertaining to the P14,400,000.00 disbursement for
SANTIAGO, Complainant, v. sub-base aggregates.
ATTY. ZOSIMO SANTIAGO AND
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, The disbursement vouchers106 that petitioner Abubakar seeks to introduce
Respondents. would not exonerate him from liability in Criminal Case Nos. 24972, 24979,
24980, 24982, and 24983, where the disbursement vouchers are not relevant.
G.R. No. 217781, June 20, The disbursement vouchers relate to the payment of the balance of
2018 - SAN MIGUEL PURE mobilization fees to contractors. The criminal cases cited by Abubakar, on the
FOODS COMPANY, INC., other hand, pertain to the alleged advance payment for sub-base aggregates.
Petitioner, v. FOODSPHERE,
INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. Likewise, the evidence cited by petitioner Baraguir would not affect the result
217788, June 20, 2018 - of the case against him. There is no reason to introduce pieces of evidence to
FOODSPHERE, INC., Petitioner, prove the publication of the invitation to bid and the conduct of actual bidding.
v. SAN MIGUEL PURE FOODS The occurrence of these events was not disputed by the parties. Meanwhile,
COMPANY, INC., Respondent. the Notices of Award and Notices to Commence, even if admitted, would not
change the finding that certain contractors deployed their equipment ahead of
G.R. No. 230953, June 20, public bidding. The pieces of evidence that petitioner Baraguir ought to have
2018 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE presented are those tending to prove that the contractors only mobilized after
INSURANCE SYSTEM BOARD they won the bidding. This would have destroyed the prosecution's theory and
OF TRUSTEES AND CRISTINA
the basis for the criminal charge.107
V. ASTUDILLO, Petitioners, v.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
Second, petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir's former counsel was not grossly
- CEBU CITY AND FORMER
negligent. Their former counsel may have failed to present other pieces of
JUDGE MA. LORNA P.
evidence in addition to what their co-accused had presented. He may have
DEMONTEVERDE,
also failed to incorporate other arguments in the record of the case. However,
Respondents.
these cannot be considered as grossly negligent acts.
G.R. No. 206331, June 04,

Assessments regarding the materiality or relevancy of evidence, competency
2018 - DEPARTMENT OF
of witnesses, and procedural technique generally fall within the expertise and
AGRARIAN REFORM MULTI-
control of counsel.108 This Court has held that for a claim of gross negligence
PURPOSE COOPERATIVE
to prosper, "nothing short of clear abandonment of the client's cause must be
(DARMPC), Petitioner, v.
shown."109
CARMENCITA DIAZ,
REPRESENTED BY MARY
Litigants cannot always be assured that their expectations regarding their
CATHERINE M. DIAZ; EMMA
CABIGTING; AND NINA T. counsel's competence would be met. In Ong Lay Hin v. Court of Appeals:110
SAMANIEGO, Respondents.
The state does not guarantee to the client that they will receive the
kind of service that they expect. Through this court, we set the
A.C. No. 10992, June 19,
standard on competence and integrity through the application
2018 - RODOLFO M. YUMANG,
requirements and our disciplinary powers. Whether counsel
CYNTHIA V. YUMANG AND
discharges his or her role to the satisfaction of the client is a
ARLENE TABULA,
matter that will ideally be necessarily monitored but, at present, is
Complainants, v. ATTY. EDWIN
too impractical.
M. ALAESTANTE, Respondent.;
A.C. No. 10993, , June 19,
Besides, finding good counsel is also the responsibility of the client
2018 - BERLIN V. GABERTAN
especially when he or she can afford to do so. Upholding client
AND HIGINO GABERTAN,
autonomy in these choices is infinitely a better policy choice than
Complainants, v. ATTY. EDWIN
assuming that the state is omniscient. Some degree of error must,
M. ALAESTANTE, Respondent.
therefore, be borne by the client who does have the capacity to
make choices.
G.R. No. 226485, June 06,
2018 - THE PEOPLE OF THE
This is one of the bases of the doctrine that the error of counsel
visits the client. This court will cease to perform its social functions
Appellee, v. BERNIE
if it provides succor to all who are not satisfied with the services of
DELOCIEMBRE Y ANDALES
their counsel.111
AND DHATS ADAM Y DANGA,
Accused-Appellants. Furthermore, in Aguila v. Court of First Instance of Batangas:112
G.R. No. 199930, June 27, Persons are allowed to practice law only after they shall have
2018 - MELITA O. DEL passed the bar examinations, which merely determine if they have
ROSARIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE the minimum requirements to engage in the exercise of the legal
OF THE PHILIPPINES, profession. This is no guaranty, of course, that they will discharge
Respondent. their duties with full fidelity to their clients or with unfailing
mastery or at least appreciation of the law. The law, to be fair, is
G.R. No. 212348, June 19, not really all that simple; there are parts that are rather
2018 - CAREER EXECUTIVE complicated and may challenge the skills of many lawyers. By and
SERVICE BOARD, large, however, the practice of the law should not present much
REPRESENTED BY ITS difficulty unless by some unfortunate quirk of fate, the lawyer has
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARIA been allowed to enter the bar despite his lack of preparation, or,
ANTHONETTE VELASCO- while familiar with the intricacies of his calling, is nevertheless
ALLONES, Petitioner, v. neglectful of his duties and does not pay proper attention to his
COMMISSION ON AUDIT; THE work.113
AUDIT TEAM LEADER, CAREER
II
EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD;
AND THE SUPERVISING
AUDITOR, CLUSTER A - The prosecution of offenses is generally addressed to the sound discretion of
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICES I, the fiscal. A claim of "selective prosecution"114 may only prosper if there is
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT extrinsic evidence of "clear showing of intentional discrimination."115 The

SECTOR, Respondents. prosecution of one person to the exclusion of others who may be just as guilty
does not automatically entail a violation of the equal protection clause.
G.R. No. 233480, June 20,
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE Selective prosecution is a concept that is foreign to this jurisdiction. It
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- originated from United States v. Armstrong,116 a 1996 case decided by the
Appellee, v. MELANIE B.
United States Supreme Court.117 A case for selective prosecution arises when
MERCADER, Accused-
a prosecutor charges defendants based on "constitutionally prohibited
Appellant.
standards such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification."118
Essentially, a selective prosecution claim rests upon an alleged violation of the
G.R. No. 217028, June 13,
equal protection clause.119
PHILIPPINES Plaintiff-Appellee,
Although "selective prosecution" has not been formally adopted in this
v. BENJAMIN DOMASIG A.K.A.
jurisdiction, there are cases that have been decided by this Court recognizing
"MANDO" OR "PILIKITOT"
the possibility of defendants being unduly discriminated against through the
Accused-Appellant.
prosecutorial process. The burden lies on the defendant to show discriminatory
intent through extrinsic evidence.
G.R. No. 199625, June 06,
2018 - JEROME R. CANLAS,
Petitioner, v. GONZALO In People v. Dela Piedra,120 the accused was charged and convicted of large-
BENJAMIN A. BONGOLAN, scale illegal recruitment.121 Among the arguments she raised in her appeal
ELMER NONNATUS A. was the violation of the equal protection clause as she was the only person
CADANO, MELINDA M. who was charged. She pointed out that a certain Jasmine Alejandro
ADRIANO, RAFAEL P. DELOS (Alejandro), the person who handed out application forms, was not indicted.
SANTOS, CORAZON G. She concluded that the prosecution discriminated against her based on
CORPUZ, DANILO C. JAVIER, "regional origins." She was a Cebuana while Alejandro was a
AND JIMMY B. SARONA, Zamboangueña.122
Respondents.
In rejecting the accused's argument, this Court held that the prosecution of
G.R. No. 187186, June 06, one person to the exclusion of others who may be just as guilty does not
2018 - ALICIA C. GALINDEZ,
automatically entail a violation of the equal protection clause.123 There must
Petitioner, v. SALVACION
be a showing of discriminatory intent or "clear and intentional discrimination,"
FIRMALAN; THE HON. OFFICE
which can only be established through extrinsic evidence. In Dela Piedra:
OF THE PRESIDENT THROUGH
THE HON. OFFICE OF THE Where the official action purports to be in conformity to the
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND statutory classification, an erroneous or mistaken performance of
THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE the statutory duty. although a violation of the statute, is not
DIRECTOR, DENR-REGION IV, without more a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The
Respondent. unlawful administration by officers of a statute fair on its face,
resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be
G.R. No. 199455, June 27, treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is
2018 - FEDERAL EXPRESS shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. discrimination. This may appear on the face of the action taken
LUWALHATI R. ANTONINO AND with respect to a particular class or person, or it may only be
ELIZA BETTINA RICASA shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design over
ANTONINO, Respondents. another not to be inferred from the action itself. But a
discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a showing
G.R. No. 200678, June 04, of "clear and intentional discrimination." Appellant has failed to
2018 - BANCO FILIPINO show that, in charging appellant in court, that there was a "clear
SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE and intentional discrimination" on the part of the prosecuting
BANK, Petitioner, v. BANGKO officials.
SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND
THE MONETARY BOARD, The discretion of who to prosecute depends on the prosecution's
Respondents. sound assessment whether the evidence before it can justify a
reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense. The
G.R. No. 202836, June 19, presumption is that the prosecuting officers regularly performed
2018 - FIRST SARMIENTO their duties, and this presumption can be overcome only by proof
PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., to the contrary, not by mere speculation. Indeed, appellant has not
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE BANK presented any evidence to overcome this presumption. The mere
OF COMMUNICATIONS, allegation that appellant, a Cebuana, was charged with the
Respondent. commission of a crime, while a Zamboangueña, the guilty party in
appellant's eyes, was not, is insufficient to support a conclusion
A.C. No. 11944 (Formerly that the prosecution officers denied appellant equal protection of
CBD No. 12-3463), June 20, the laws.
2018 - BSA TOWER
CONDOMINIUM There is also common sense practicality in sustaining appellant's
CORPORATION, Complainant, prosecution.
v. ATTY. ALBERTO CELESTINO
While all persons accused of crime are to be treated on
B. REYES II, Respondent.
a basis of equality before the law, it does not follow that
they are to be protected in the commission of crime. It
G.R. No. 218330, June 27,
would be unconscionable, for instance, to excuse a
2018 - HEIRS OF MARCELIANO
defendant guilty of murder because others have
N. OLORVIDA, JR.,
murdered with impunity. The remedy for unequal
REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE,
enforcement of the law in such instances does not lie in
NECITA D. OLORVIDA,
the exoneration of the guilty at the expense of society .
Petitioner, v. BSM CREW
. . Protection of the law will be extended to all persons
SERVICE CENTRE
equally in the pursuit of their lawful occupations, but no
PHILIPPINES, INC., AND/OR
person has the right to demand protection of the law in
BERNHARD SCHULTE SHIP
the commission of a crime.
MANAGEMENT (CYPRUS) LTD.
AND/OR NARCISSUS L.
Likewise,
DURAN, Respondents.
[i]f the failure of prosecutors to enforce the criminal

G.R. No. 234018, June 06,
laws as to some persons should be converted into a
defense for others charged with crime, the result would
be that the trial of the district attorney for nonfeasance
Appellee, v. EVANGELINE DE
would become an issue in the trial of many persons
DIOS Y BARRETO, Accused-
charged with heinous crimes and the enforcement of
Appellant.
law would suffer a complete breakdown.124 (Emphasis
A.M. No. P-18-3843 in the original, citations omitted)
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 16- The principle established in Dela Piedra was reiterated and applied in People v.
4612-P), June 25, 2018 -
Dumlao:125
CONCERNED CITIZENS,
Complainants, v. RUTH A discriminatory purpose is never presumed. It must be
TANGLAO SUAREZ HOLGUIN, remembered that it was not solely respondent who was charged,
UTILITY WORKER 1, OFFICE but also five of the seven board members. If, indeed, there were
OF THE CLERK OF COURT, discrimination, respondent Dumlao alone could have been charged.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, But this was not the case. Fmther, the fact that the dismissal of the
ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA, case against his co-accused Canlas and Clave was not appealed is
Respondent. not sufficient to cry discrimination. This is likewise true for the non-
inclusion of the two government officials who signed the Lease-
A.C. No. 12084, June 06, Purchase Agreement and the other two board members. Mere
2018 - HERNANIE P. DANDOY, speculation, unsupported by convincing evidence, cannot establish
Complainant, v. ATTY. ROLAND discrimination on the part of the prosecution and the denial to
G. EDAYAN, Respondent. respondent of the equal protection of the laws.126
The reason for the requirement of "clear and intentional discrimination" lies in
G.R. No. 232666, June 20,
2018 - FIELD INVESTIGATION the discretion given to fiscals in the prosecution of offenses. In People v.
UNIT-OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY Pineda,127 this Court held that the choice of who to prosecute is addressed to
OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, the sound discretion of the investigating prosecutor. He or she may not be
Petitioner, v. RAQUEL A. DE compelled to charge persons when the evidence is insufficient to establish
CASTRO, Respondent. probable cause:
A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no

G.R. No. 185484, June 27,
2018 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not
Petitioner, v. IMELDA R. convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof,
MARCOS, Respondent. or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. This is
not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the
G.R. Nos. 203797-98, June part of the prosecutor. But we must have to recognize that a
27, 2018 - CARMENCITA O. prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled to work
REYES, Petitioner, v. against his conviction. In case of doubt, we should give him the
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST benefit thereof. A contrary rule may result in our court being
DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE unnecessarily swamped with unmeritorious cases. Worse still, a
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, criminal suspect's right to due process - the sporting idea of fair
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, play - may be transgressed.128
AND THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents. In Alberto v. De la Cruz,129 this Court said:
Although this power and prerogative of the Fiscal, to determine

G.R. No. 227427, June 06,
whether or not the evidence at hand is sufficient to form a
reasonable belief that a person committed an offense, is not
absolute and subject to judicial review, it would be embarrassing
Appellee, v. DELIA CALLEJO Y
for the prosecuting attorney to be compelled to prosecute a case
TADEJA AND SILVERA
when he is in no position to do so, because in his opinion, he does
ANTOQUE Y MOYA@ "INDAY",
not have the necessary evidence to secure a conviction, or he is
Accused-Appellants.
not convinced of the merits of the case. The better procedure
would be to appeal the Fiscal's decision to the Ministry of Justice
G.R. No. 194983, June 20,
and/or ask for a special prosecutor.130 (Citation omitted)
2018 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO Petitioners failed to establish discriminatory intent on the part of the
BACANI, RODOLFO BACANI, Ombudsman in choosing not to indict other alleged participants to the
ROSALIA VDA. DE BAYAUA, anomalous transactions. Their contention that several other public officials
JOSE BAYAUA AND JOVITA were not criminally charged, by itself, does not amount to a violation of
VDA. DE BAYAUA, Respondent. petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir's right to equal protection of laws. The
evidence against the others may have been insufficient to establish probable
A.C. No. 12025, June 20, cause. There may have been no evidence at all. At this point, all this Court
2018 - EDMUND BALMACEDA, could do is speculate. In the absence of extrinsic evidence establishing
Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO discriminatory intent, a claim of selective prosecution cannot prosper.
Z. USON, Respondent.
III
G.R. No. 231133, June 06,
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 punishes a public officer who causes
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- "any undue injury to any party, including the Government" or gives "any
Appellee, v. MARVIN private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
MADRONA OTICO, Accused- discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
Appellant. partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence."
A.C. No. 12121 (Formerly A conviction under this provision reqmres the concurrence of the following
CBD Case No. 14-4322), June elements:
27, 2018 - CELESTINO
MALECDAN, Complainant, v. 1. The accused must be a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial or official functions;
ATTY. SIMPSON T. BALDO,
Respondent.
2. He [or she] must have acted with manifest partiality, evident
G.R. No. 220517, June 20, bad faith or [gross] inexcusable negligence;
2018 - LOLITA ESPIRITU

3. That his [or her] action caused any undue injury to any party,
SANTO MENDOZA AND SPS.
including the government, or giving any private party
ALEXANDER AND ELIZABETH
GUTIERREZ, Petitioners, v. unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
SPS. RAMON, SR. AND discharge of his functions.131
NATIVIDAD PALUGOD,
The second element provides the modalities by which a violation of Section
Respondents.
3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 may be committed. "Manifest partiality,"
"evident bad faith," or "gross inexcusable negligence" are not separate
G.R. No. 230170, June 06,
offenses,132 and proof of the existence of any of these three (3) "in
2018 - MA. SUGAR M.
MERCADO AND SPOUSES connection with the prohibited acts . . . is enough to convict."133
REYNALDO AND YOLANDA

MERCADO, Petitioners, v. These terms were defined in Uriarte v. People:134
HON.JOEL SOCRATES S.
There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious or
LOPENA [PRESIDING JUDGE,
plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad
BRANCH 33, QUEZON CITY],
HON. JOHN BOOMSRI S. judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest
RODOLFO [PRESIDING JUDGE, purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, perverse motive or ill will. It contemplates a state of mind
BRANCH 38, QUEZON CITY], affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or
HON. REYNALDO B. DAWAY self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable
[PRESIDING JUDGE, negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation
BRANCH 90, QUEZON CITY], where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
HON. ROBERTO P. intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar
BUENAVENTURA [PRESIDING as other persons may be affected.135 (Emphasis in the original,
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL citations omitted)
COURT, BRANCH 86, QUEZON
The third element refers to two (2) separate acts that qualify as a violation of
CITY], HON. JOSE L.
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. An accused may be charged with the
BAUTISTA, JR. [PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL commission of either or both.
COURT, BRANCH 107, QUEZON

CITY], HON. VITALIANO An accused is said to have caused undue injury to the government or any
AGUIRRE II (IN HIS CAPACITY party when the latter sustains actual loss or damage, which must exist as a
fact and cannot be based on speculations or conjectures. Thus, in a situation
AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE),
where the government could have been defrauded, the law would be
BON. DONALD LEE (IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF inapplicable, there being no actual loss or damage sustained.136
THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON In Pecho v. Sandiganbayan,137 this Court was faced with the issue of whether
CITY), KRISTOFER JAY I. GO, the attempted or frustrated stages of the offense defined in Section 3(e) of
PETER AND ESTHER GO, Republic Act No. 3019 are punishable. The accused and his coconspirators'
KENNETH ROUE I. GO, CASEY plan to defraud the government was prevented through the timely intervention
LIM JIMENEZ, CRISTINA of customs officials.138 In holding that Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019
PALILEO, AND RUEL BALINO, only covers consummated acts, this Court reasoned among others that:
Respondents.
[T]he third requisite of Section 3(e), viz., "causing undue injury to
G.R. No. 229302, June 20, any party, including the government," could only mean actual
2018 - CONSOLIDATED injury or damage which must be established by evidence. [T]he
DISTILLERS OF THE FAR EAST, word causing is the present participle of the word cause. As a verb,
INC., Petitioner, v. ROGEL N. the latter means "to be the cause or occasion of; to effect as an
ZARAGOZA, Respondent. agent; to bring about; to bring into existence; to make to induce;
to compel." The word undue means "more than necessary; not
G.R. No. 227504, June 13, proper; illegal." And the word injury means "any wrong or damage
2018 - PEOPLE OF THE done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation or property.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- The invasion of any legally protected interest of another." Taken
Appellee, v. RODOLFO together, proof of actual injury or damage is required.
GRABADOR, JR., ROGER

ABIERRA, DANTE ABIERRA ....
AND ALEX ABIERRA, Accused,;

ALEX ABIERRA, Accused- No actual injury or damage having been caused to the Government
Appellant. due to the timely 100% examination of the shipment and the
subsequent issuance of a hold order and a warrant of seizure and
A.M. No. RTJ-18-2525 detention, the petitioner must, perforce, be acquitted of the
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 15- violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.139 (Citations omitted)
4435-RTJ), June 25, 2018 -
The loss or damage need not be proven with actual certainty. However, there
SAMUEL N. RODRIGUEZ,
must be "some reasonable basis by which the court can measure it."140 Aside
Complainant, v. HON. OSCAR
P. NOEL, JR., EXECUTIVE from this, the loss or damage must be substantial.141 It must be "more than
JUDGE/PRESIDING JUDGE, necessary, excessive, improper or illegal."142

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
GENERAL SANTOS CITY, The second punishable act under Section 3(e) ofRepublic Act No. 3019 is the
BRANCH 35, Respondent. giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to a private party.
This does not require actual damage as it is sufficient that the accused has
G.R. No. 217027, June 06, given "unjustified favor or benefit to another."143
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- The terms "unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference" were defined in
Appellee, v. NARCISO SUPAT Y Uriarte:144
RADOC ALIAS "ISOY",
Accused-Appellant. [U]nwarranted means lacking adequate or official support;
unjustified; unauthorized; or without justification or adequate
G.R. No. 202408, June 27, reasons. Advantage means a more favorable or improved position
2018 - FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, or condition; benefit or gain of any kind; benefit from course of
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE action. Preference signifies priority or higher evaluation or

PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; desirability; choice or estimation above another.145 (Emphasis in
G.R. No. 202409 - ULAMA S. the original, citation omitted)
BARAGUIR Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, III.A
Respondent.; G.R. No. 202412

This Court finds that petitioners Baraguir and Guiani gave unwarranted
- DATUKAN M. GUIANI
benefits and advantage to several contractors by allowing them to deploy their
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. equipment ahead of the scheduled public bidding.
G.R. No. 234288, June 27, As a matter of policy, public contracts are awarded through competitive public
bidding. The purpose of this process is two (2)-fold.
PHILIPPINES v. BINAD CHUA Y
MAIGE First, it protects public interest by giving the public the "best possible
advantages thru open competition."146 Open and fair competition among
G.R. No. 205409, June 13, bidders is seen as a mechanism by which the public may obtain the best terms
2018 - CITIGROUP, INC., on a given contract. Participating bidders offer competing proposals, which are
Petitioner, v. CITYSTATE evaluated by the appropriate authority "to determine the bid most favorable to
SAVINGS BANK, INC. the government."147
Respondent.
Second, competitive public bidding avoids "suspicion of favoritism and
G.R. No. 199515, June 25, anomalies in the execution of public contracts."148
2018 - RHODORA ILUMIN
RACHO, A.K.A. "RHODORA These important public policy considerations demand the strict observance of
RACHO TANAKA," Petitioner, v.
procedural rules relating to the bidding process.149
SEIICHI TANAKA, LOCAL CIVIL
REGISTRAR OF LAS PIÑAS
Under Presidential Decree No. 1594, a public contract shall be awarded to the
CITY, AND THE
lowest prequalified bidder. The bid must comply with the terms and conditions
ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL
stated in the call to bid and must be the most advantageous to the
REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE
government.150 After the evaluation of the bids, the winning bidder shall be
NATIONAL STATISTICS
given a Notice of Award. The concerned government office or agency and the
OFFICE, Respondents.
successful bidder will then execute the contract, which shall be forwarded to
the head of the concerned government office or agency for approval. The
G.R. No. 182307, June 06,
contract's approval signifies its perfection and it is at this time when the
2018 - BELINA CANCIO AND
successful bidder may be allowed to commence work upon receipt of a Notice
JEREMY PAMPOLINA,
to Proceed.151
Petitioners, v. PERFORMANCE
FOREIGN EXCHANGE
Petitioners Baraguir and Guiani insist that the prosecution failed to establish
CORPORATION, Respondent.
their intent to favor some contractors in the bidding process. Petitioner Guiani
claims that the certificates of mobilization, on which the prosecution heavily
A.M. No. RTJ-18-2527
relies, prove nothing.
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-
4563-RTJ), June 18, 2018 -
Their arguments are unmeritorious.
ATTY. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY,
Complainant, v. HON. RAMON
The certificates of mobilization, which were issued at least one (1) week
B. DAOMILAS, JR., PRESIDING
before the date of public bidding, categorically identified HMB Construction
JUDGE, AND ATTY. ROSADEY
and Supply, Kutawato Construction, Al Mohandiz Construction, JM
E. FAELNAR-BINONGO, CLERK
Construction, PMA Construction, Al-Aziz-Engineering, and MGL Construction as
OF COURT V, BOTH OF
contractors for some portions of the Awang-Nuro Road and Cotabato-Lanao
BRANCH 11, REGIONAL TRIAL
Road Projects.
COURT, CEBU CITY, CEBU,
Respondents.
The acts of identifying certain contractors ahead of the scheduled public
bidding and of allowing the advanced deployment of their equipment through
G.R. No. 230991, June 11,
the issuance of certificates of mobilization are glaring irregularities in the
2018 - HILARIO B. ALILING,
bidding procedure that engender suspicion of favoritism and partiality towards
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
the seven (7) contractors. These irregularities create a reasonable, if not
conclusive, presumption that the concerned public officials had no intention of
complying with the rules on public bidding and that the results were already
A.C. No. 11326 (Formerly
predetermined.
CBD Case No. 14-4305), June
27, 2018 - PELAGIO VICENCIO
Although petitiOner Baraguir concedes that contractors can only commence
SORONGON, JR., Complainant,
work after they receive a notice to proceed, he justifies the irregularity on an
v. ATTY. RAMON Y.
GARGANTOS, SR., alleged "risk-taking strategy' employed by some contractors.152
Respondent.
This appears to be a flimsy excuse. There is no justifiable reason why
G.R. Nos. 224131-32, June contractors should be allowed to deploy their equipment in advance
25, 2018 - SM INVESTMENTS considering that it would defeat the very purpose of competitive public
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. bidding. Benefits derived from this practice, if any, would certainly not
MAC GRAPHICS1 CARRANZ redound to the government.
INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
Respondent.; G.R. Nos. Aside from this, the alleged purpose of the contractors in mobilizing their
224337-38, June 25, 2018 - equipment ahead of public bidding is speculative. Prospective contractors are
PRIME METROESTATE, INC., required to possess the technical capability to execute the implementation of a
Petitioner, v. MAC GRAPHICS given project. Section 3(b) of Presidential Decree No. 1594 lists as a condition
CARRANZ INTERNATIONAL for all bidders the "[a]vailability and commitment of the contractor's
CORP., Respondent. equipment to be used for the subject project."153 The PreQualification Bids
and Awards Committee is mandated under the implementing rules and
G.R. No. 212156, June 20, regulations to look into the "suitability of [the contractor's] available
construction equipment" in assessing technical capability.154
Appellee, v. GERRY AGRAMON,
The screening process ensures that bidders have the necessary equipment and
Accused-Appellant.
personnel to carry out the implementation of a particular government project.
In this regard, it may not even be possible for a winning bidder to lease
G.R. No. 190512, June 20,
equipment from another contractor after it has won because technical
2018 - D.M. RAGASA
capability is evaluated before the submission of the bids. Assuming that
ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner,
prospective bidders would be permitted to sublease their equipment from
v. BANCO DE ORO, INC.
other entities, the sublease agreement should already be finalized prior to the
(FORMERLY EQUITABLE PCI
conduct of public bidding.
BANK, INC.), Respondent.
Clearly, petitioners Baraguir and Guiani gave seven (7) contractors

G.R. No. 232299, June 20,
unwarranted benefits and advantage through manifest partiality. Petitioner
Baraguir also gave unwarranted benefits and advantage to the contractors
through gross inexcusable negligence. Admittedly, he failed to check the dates
Appellee, v. ROBERTO
on the certificates of mobilization when they were presented to him for his
ANDRADA Y CAAMPUED,
signature.155
Accused-Appellant.
III.B
G.R. No. 213273, June 27,
Petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir assert that they should benefit from the
judgment of acquittal in Criminal Case No. 24971. The judgment in Criminal
Appellee, v. LEONARDO B.
Case No. 24971 should likewise apply in Criminal Case No. 24970.156
SIEGA, Accused-Appellant.
Concededly, Criminal Case Nos. 24970 and 24971 are similar in that they are
founded upon the same contract, particularly the Contract for Survey Work.157
However, the charges are different. Petitioner Guiani was charged in Criminal
Case No. 24971 for allegedly entering into an unnecessary engineering survey
contract with Arce Engineering Services. He was acquitted upon a finding that
the engineering survey was indispensable for the project's implementation. On
the other hand, in Criminal Case No. 24970, petitioners Abubakar, Baraguir,
and Guiani were charged for causing the payment of excessive mobilization
fees to Arce Engineering Services. Therefore, the acquittal of petitioner Guiani
in Criminal Case No. 24971 would have no effect on Criminal Case No. 24970.
The implementing rules and regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1594 allow
contractors to obtain advance payment from the government during the
contract's implementation stage. Before a disbursement can be made, the
contractor must submit a written request and furnish an irrevocable standby
letter of credit or a guarantee payment bond. The rules limit the amount of
advance payment to 15% of the total contract price.158
A provision in a contract stipulating for a higher percentage of advance

payment is invalid. In J.C. Lopez & Associates, Inc. v. Commission on
Audit,159 this Court struck down a contractual provision authorizing the

payment of P18,000,000.00 to a contractor as mobilization cost. The amount,
which was 26% of the total contract price, exceeded the prescribed limitation
for advance payment under the implementing rules and regulations of
Presidential Decree No. 1594. This Court held that although parties may
stipulate on such tenns and conditions that they deem convenient, these
stipulations should not be contrary to law. The justification given by the
petitioner in that case for the stipulated mobilization cost was brushed
aside.160
In this case, the Contract for Survey Work entered into by petitioner Guiani
with Arce Engineering Services stated, in part:
4. As compensation for the services to be rendered by the

SURVEYOR to the CLIENT, the CLIENT hereby agrees to pay the
SURVEYOR the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P200,000.00), with the following as Mode of Payment;
4.1. Thirty percent of the Contract Cost or P60,000.00

upon signing of this CONTRACT, with the SURVEYOR
posting a Surety Bond of equal amount[.]161
Section 4 of the Contract for Survey Work gave Arce Engineering Services the
right to secure 30% of the contract cost as advance payment or mobilization
fee upon the contract's execution. This is clearly contrary to the implementing
rules and regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1594 on advance payment.
Petitioner Guiani cannot shift the blame to his subordinates because he

entered into the contract with Arce Engineering Services as Regional
Secretary. In consenting to the 30% advance payment, petitioner Guiani,
through evident bad faith, gave unwarranted benefits to Arce Engineering
Services. Bad faith, as contemplated under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.
3019, connotes "not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently
fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious
wrongdoing."162
Petitioners impute the increased mobilization fee to the risks that Arce
Engineering Services might encounter in the area to be surveyed.
As pointed out by the Commission on Audit, risks during the actual survey, if
any, could have been covered by the total contract cost.163 If Arce
Engineering Services foresaw security and safety issues in the area, these
could have been factored into the contract price. There is no justifiable reason
for the government to award additional mobilization fees to Arce Engineering
Services.
Petitioners Abubakar and Baraguir, in allowing the disbursement, gave

unwarranted benefits to Arce Engineering Services through evident bad faith.
They cannot seek refuge in the argument that they relied in good faith on
what was stated in the Contract for Survey Vork because the illegality was
patent on the face of the contract. The disbursement should not have been
allowed for being contrary to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1594.
Furthermore, they are not entitled to the justifying circumstance of "any
person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior" under Article
11(6) of the Revised Penal Code as the order issued by the superior must be
for a lawful purpose.164 In this case, the contractual provision allowing Arce
Engineering Services to claim 30% of the contract price as mobilization fees is
clearly unlawful.
III.C
Section 88(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1445165 prohibits advance payments

on undelivered supplies and on services that have not yet been rendered. It
states:
CHAPTER 4
Application of Appropriated Funds
....
Section 88. Prohibition Against Advance Payment on Government

Contracts. - (1) Except with the prior approval of the President
(Prime Minister) the government shall not be obliged to make an
advance payment for services not yet rendered or for supplies and
materials not yet delivered under any contract therefor. No
payment, partial or final, shall be made on any such contract
except upon a certification by the head of the agency concerned to
the effect that the services or supplies and materials have been
rendered or delivered in accordance with the terms of the contract
and have been duly inspected and accepted.
An exception to the prohibition on advance payment under Presidential Decree

No. 1445 is Memorandum Order No. 341, which allows government agencies
that implement government infrastructure projects to procure cement,
reinforcing steel bars, and asphalt on a pre-payment basis.
The February 18, 1991 Guidelines166 issued by the Department of Public

Works and Highways require contractors who wish to avail of the prepayment
facility to submit a written request addressed to the head of the implementing
government agency with the following requirements:
(a) the quantities of materials for which pre-payment is desired

which should not exceed the project requirements per balance of
work as of the filing date of the request;
(b) the unit cost of the materials and the corresponding total cost
of quantities applied for;
(c) the name of the Supplier to which payment shall be made;
(d) [the] Contract Agreement between Contractor and Supplier

indicating the quantities of materials covered by the purchase
agreement, their unit cost and corresponding cost, mode/timing of
deliveries to the project site and terms of payment; [and]
(e) the manner of recouping the amount prepaid, the recovery

period of which shall not exceed the date when the project shall
have been 80% complete[.]167
The contractor must also furnish a surety bond as guarantee.168
The head of the implementing agency, on the other hand, is required to

process the request and may make the necessary modifications based on the
following:
(a) [the] quantities requested for pre-payment are the actual

requirements of the project per balance of work therein;
(b) the total amounts pre-paid shall be fully recovered not later
than the time when 80% of the project shall have been completed;
(c) recouping the pre-paid amount during the scheduled recovery

period will not strain the cash flow of the contractor which is
detrimental to his operations and successful completion of the
project. The cash flow shall consider remaining deductions due to
retainage and recoupement of the 15% advance payment.169
In the present case, petitioners insist that the P14,400,000.00 advance

payment was lawful because it was actually pre-payment for cement under
Memorandum Order No. 341. Petitioners posit that the disbursement vouchers
might have been altered to reflect "sub-base aggregates."
The issue on the alleged forgery was never addressed by the Sandiganbayan
in its December 8, 2011 Decision. There was also no express finding during
the Commission on Audit's investigation as to who allegedly altered the
disbursement vouchers. Nevertheless, the Sandiganbayan observed that the
official receipts issued by the contractors indicated that the payment pertained
to the purchase of sub-base aggregates.170 DPWH-ARMM issued numerous
checks171 for which receipts were issued.172 If petitioners' claims were true,
then they should have at least questioned what was stated in the official
receipts and requested for the rectification of the discrepancy.
Thus, there is reason to believe that the P14,400,000.00 was paid in advance
for the procurement of sub-base aggregates.
Considering that sub-base aggregates are excluded from the list of

construction materials allowed to be procured under a pre-payment scheme,
the rules on advance payment under Presidential Decree No. 1445 should
apply. For an advance payment to be lawful, the materials or supplies should
have been delivered in accordance with the contract and should have been
duly inspected and accepted. If there is no delivery, prior approval of the
President is required.173
The Sandiganbayan found that the procurement of sub-base aggregates was

not supported by any purchase orders. There were also no receipts to
evidence delivery of the materials on-site.174 Thus, the disbursement should

not have been approved by petitioners due to the absence of appropriate
supporting documents. Undue benefit was given to contractors when they
were allowed to claim advance payments totaling P14,400,000.00 for
undelivered materials. These contractors had no right to receive them under
Section 88(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1445.
IV
This Court's ruling in Arias v. Sandiganbayan175 cannot exonerate petitioners

from criminal liability.
Arias laid down the doctrine that heads of offices may, in good faith, rely to a
certain extent on the acts of their subordinates "who prepare bids, purchase
supplies, or enter into negotiations."176 This is based upon the recognition

that heads of offices cannot be expected to examine every single document
relative to government transactions:
We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by

all too common problems - dishonest or negligent subordinates,
overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain incompetence
- is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he
did not personally examine every single detail, painstakingly trace
every step from inception, and investigate the motives of every
person involved in a transaction before affixing his signature as the
final approving authority.
There appears to be no question from the records that [the]

documents used in the negotiated sale were falsified. A key tax
declaration had a typewritten number instead of being machine
numbered. The registration stampmark was antedated and the
land [was] reclassified as residential instead of ricefield. But were
the petitioners guilty of conspiracy in the falsification and the
subsequent charge of causing undue injury and damage to the
Government?
We can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have probed

records, inspected documents, received procedures, and
questioned persons. It is doubtful if any auditor for a fairly sized
office could personally do all these things in all vouchers presented
for his signature. The Court would be asking for the impossible. All
heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their
subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids,
purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. If a department
secretary entertains important visitors, the auditor is not ordinarily
expected to call the restaurant about the amount of the bill,
question each guest whether he was present at the luncheon,
inquire whether the correct amount of food was served, and
otherwise personally look into the reimbursement voucher's
accuracy, propriety, and sufficiency. There has to be some added
reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any
executive head of even small government agencies or commissions
can attest to the volume of papers that must be signed. There are
hundreds of documents, letters, memoranda, vouchers, and
supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. The
number in bigger offices or departments is even more appalling.177

(Emphasis supplied)
The application of the doctrine is subject to the qualification that the public
official has no foreknowledge of any facts or circumstances that would prompt
him or her to investigate or exercise a greater degree of care.178 In a number

of cases, this Court refused to apply the Arias doctrine considering that there
were circumstances that should have prompted the government official to
inquire further.179
In the present case, the Arias doctrine cannot exonerate petitioners Abubakar,
Baraguir, or Guiani from criminal liability. There were circumstances that
should have prompted them to make further inquiries on the transactions
subject of this case.
In Criminal Case Nos. 24963-24969 on the early mobilization of contractors,

the irregularity was already apparent on the face of the certificates of
mobilization, which bore dates earlier than the scheduled public bidding. This
should have already roused suspicion from petitioners Baraguir and Guiani,
who were the last signatories and final approving authorities.
The same can be said for Criminal Case No. 24970. The Contract of Survey
Work, which was used as the primary supporting document for the
disbursement of the 30% mobilization fee to Arce Engineering Services,
contained a patently illegal stipulation. Petitioner Guiani cannot blame his
subordinates and claim that he acted in good faith considering that he entered
into the contract with Arce Engineering Services.
Petitioners should have also made further inqmnes regarding the

P14,400,000.00 advance payment for sub-aggregates. There were no
appropriate documents such as purchase orders and delivery receipts to
support this disbursement.
The rules on public bidding and on public funds disbursement are imbued with
public interest. The positions and functions of petitioners Abubakar, Baraguir,
and Guiani impose upon them a greater responsibility in ensuring that rules on
these matters are complied with. They are expected to exercise a greater
degree of diligence.
WHEREFORE, the Consolidated Petitions are DENIED. The assailed

December 8, 2011 Decision and June 19, 2012 Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 24963 to 24969, Criminal Case No.
24970, and Criminal Case Nos. 24972 to 24983 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner
Farouk B. Abubakar is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt often (10)
counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Petitioners Ulama
S. Baraguir and Datukan M. Guiani are found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of seventeen (17) counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.
3019.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Del Castillo,* and Martires, JJ., concur.
September 24, 2018
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on June 27, 2018 a Decision, copy attached hereto,
was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of
which was received by this Office on September 24, 2018 at 1:55 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated June 20, 2018.
1 The Petitions were filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2Rollo (G.R. No. 202408), pp. 11-84.
3Rollo (G.R. No. 202409), pp. 11-84.
4Rollo (G.R. No. 202412), pp. 3-12.
5Rollo (G.R. No. 202408), pp. 85-146. The Decision was penned by
Associate Justice Efren N. De La Cruz and concurred in by

Associate Justices Rodolfo R. Ponferrada and Rafael R. Lagos of the
First Division, Sancliganbayan, Quezon City.
6 Id. at 147-165. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice
Efren N. De La Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodolfo

A. Ponferrada and Rafael R. Lagos of the First Division,
Sandiganbayan, Quezon City.
7Rollo (G.R. No. 202412) at 69-72.
8 Id. at 28-29.
9 435 Phil. 467 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].
10Rollo (G.R. No. 202412), pp. 41-42.
11 Id. at 42.
12 Id. at 42-43.
13Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) p. 22.
14 Id. at 241-267, Report of the COA-Special Audit Team.
15 Id. at 248-254.
16 Id. at 254-260.
17 Pres. Decree No. 1594 (1978), sec. 2 provides:
Section 2. Detailed Engineering. - No bidding and/or award of

contract for a construction project shall be made unless the
detailed engineering investigations, surveys, and designs for the
project have been sufficiently carried out in accordance with the
standards and specifications to be established under the rules and
regulations to be promulgated pursuant to Section 12 of this
Decree so as to minimize quantity and cost overruns and
underruns, change orders and extra work orders, and unless the
detailed engineering documents have been approved by the
Minister of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, the
Minister of Public Highways, or the Minister of Energy, as the case
may be.
18Rollo (G.R. No. 202408), pp. 260-262.

19 Id. at 262-266.
20 Id. at 22-24.
21Rollo (G.R. No. 202412) pp. 14-18.
22 Id. at 18.
23 Id. at 19.
24 Id. at 19-25.
25 Id. at 25-27.
26 Id. at 14-27.
27 Id. at 27.
28 Id. at 29.
29 Id. at 31.
30 Id. at 32-33.
31 Id. at 34-35.
32 Id. at 35-41.
33 Id. at 35-36.
34 Id. at 36-38.
35 Id. at 38-39.
36 Id. at 40.
37 Id. at 40-41.
38 Id. at 13-73.
39 Id. at 45-52.
40 Id. at 46-52.
41 Id. at 47.
42 Id.
43 Id. In some parts of the Sandiganbayan Decision, Al Mohandiz
Construction was also referred as "Al Mohandis Construction," PMA

Construction as "P.M.A. Engineering Construction," and MGL
Construction as "M.G.L. Construction."
44 Id. at 48-51.
45 Id. at 52-55.
46 Id. at 55-59.
47 Id. at 70.
48 Id. at 59-64.
49 Id. Pres. Decree No. 1445 (1978), sec. 88(l) provides:
Section 88. Prohibition Against Advance Payment on Government

Contracts. - (1) Except with the prior approval of the President
(Prime Minister) the government shall not be obliged to make an
advance payment for services not yet rendered or for supplies and
materials not yet delivered under any contract therefor. No
payment, partial or final, shall be made on any such contract
except upon a certification by the head of the agency concerned to
the effect that the services or supplies and materials have been
rendered or delivered in accordance with the terms of the contract
and have been duly inspected and accepted.
50 Id. at 64-69.
51 Id. at 69-72.
52Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) pp. 147-151.
53Arias v. Sandiganbayan, 259 Phil. 794 (1989) [Per J. Gutierrez,
Jr., En Banc].
54Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) pp. 150-152.
55 Id. at 147-165.
56 Id. at 164-165.
57 Id. at 539-540.
58 Id. at 559-587.
59 Id. at 603-649; rollo (G.R. No. 202409) pp. 585-634.
60Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) pp. 34-49; rollo (G.R. No. 202409) pp.
29-45.
61Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) p. 46; rollo (G.R. No. 202409) p. 40.
62 Id.
63 Id.
64 Id.
65Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) p. 47; rollo (G.R. No. 202409) pp. 40-
41.
67Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) p. 46.
68 Id. at 472-476.
69 Id. at 43-44.
70Rollo (G.R. No. 202409) pp. 31-32.
71Rollo (G.R. No. 202412) pp. 144-147.
45-48.
73Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) pp. 148-150 and 153.
74Rollo (G.R. No. 202409) pp. 58-64.
75Rollo, (G.R. No. 202412) p. 6.
76 Id. at 93-96, Motion for Reconsideration with Formal Entry of
Appearance dated December 22, 2011.
77Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) pp. 68-70.
78Rollo (G.R. No. 202409) pp. 66-69.
69-72.
80Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) pp. 524-525.
81 Id. at 52-63.
82Rollo (G.R. No. 202409) pp. 48-57.
48-57; rollo (G.R. No. 202412) pp. 6 and 99-101.
84Rollo (G.R. No. 202412) pp. 6 and 96-101.
85 Id. at 152-159.
72-74.
87Rollo (G.R. No. 202412) pp. 150-151.
88Aguila v. Courr of First Instance of Batangas, 243 Phil. 505, 509
(1988) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
89Juani v. Alarcon, 532 Phil. 585, 603 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario,
First Division].
90Villa Rhecar Bus v. De la Cruz, 241 Phil. 14, 18 (1988) [Per J.
Gancayo, First Division].
91Juani v. Alarcon, 532 Phil. 585, 603-604 (2006) [Per J. Chico-
Nazario, First Division].
92Legarda v. Court of Appeals, 272-A Phil. 394, 402-404 (1991)
[Per J. Gancayo, First Division].
93Dela Cruz v. Sison, 508 Phil. 36, 44 (2005) [Per J. Austria-
Martinez, Second Division] citing Government Service Insurance

System v. Bengson Commercial Buildings, Inc., 426 Phil. 111
(2002) [Per C.J. Davide, En Banc].
94 15 Phil. 33 (1910) [Per J. Carson, En Banc].
95 Id. at 35.
96 Id. at 36.
97 Id.
98 326 Phil. 182 (1996) [Per J. Francisco, En Banc].
99 Id. at 185.
100 Id. at 189-190.
101 526 Phil. 239 (2006) [Per J. Corona, Second Division].
102 Id. at 245.
103 Id.
104 397 Phil. 76 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
105 Id. at 92-96.
106Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) pp. 472-476.
107Rollo (G.R. No. 202412) p. 50.
108See U.S. v. Umali, 15 Phil. 33, 36-37 (1910) [Per J. Carson, En
Banc].
109Estate of Macadangdang v. Gaviola, 599 Phil. 708, 715 (2009)
[Per J. Carpio, First Division] citing Spouses Que v. Court of

Appeals, 504 Phil. 616 (2005) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
110 752 Phil. 15 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
111 Id. at 24.
112 243 Phil. 505 (1988) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
113 Id. at 509.
114Rollo (G.R. No. 202408), p. 49; rollo (G.R. No. 202409), p. 46.
115Rollo (G.R. No. 202408), p. 153.
116 517 U.S. 456 (1996).
117See J. Carpio Dissenting Opinion in Biraogo v. Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010, 651 Phil. 374 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, En

Banc].
118 Melissa L. Jampol, Goodbye to the Defense of Selective
Prosecution, 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 932 (1996-1997)

available at last visited May 15, 2018.
119 Id.
120 403 Phil. 31 (2001) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division).
121 Id. at 36.
122 Id. at 53.
123 Id. at 54.
124 Id. at 54-56.
125 599 Phil. 565 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].

126 Id. at 587, citing People v. Dela Piedra, 403 Phil. 31 (2001)
[Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
127 127 Phil. 150 (1967) [Per J. Sanchez, En Banc].
128 Id. at 156-157.
129 187 Phil. 274 (1980) [Per J. Concepcion, Jr., Second Division].
130 Id. at 278.
131Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, 258-A Phil. 20, 26 (1989) [Per J.
Gancayo, En Banc].
132Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, 201 Phil. 379, 383 (1982) [Per J.
Relova, En Banc].
133Sison v. People, 628 Phil. 573,583 (2010) [Per J. Corona, Third
Division].
134 540 Phil. 477 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].
135 Id. at 494-495.
136Pecho v. Sandiganbayan, 308 Phil. 120 (1994) [Per J. Davide,
Jr., En Banc].
137 308 Phil. 120 (1994) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
138 Id. at 131.
139 Id. at 140-141.
140Soriano v. Marcelo, 597 Phil. 308, 319 (2009) [Per J. Austria-
Martinez, Third Division].
Gancayo, En Banc]; Fuentes v. People, G.R. No. 186421, April 17,

2017 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
Gancayo, En Banc].
143Sison v. People, 628 Phil. 573, 585 (2010) [Per J. Corona, Third
Division].
144 540 Phil. 477 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].
145 Id. at 497.
146Danville Maritime, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, 256 Phil. 1092,
1103 (1989) [Per J. Gancayo, En Banc].
147Agan, Jr., v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., 465
Phil. 545, 569 (2004) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
148Danville Maritime, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, 256 Phil. 1092,
1103 (1989) [Per J. Gancayo, En Banc].
149Republic v. Capulong, 276 Phil. 136, 152-153 (1991) [Per J.
Medialdea, En Banc].
150 Pres. Decree No. 1594 (1978), sec. 5 provides:
Section 5. Award and Contract. - The contract may be awarded to

the lowest prequalified bidder whose bid as evaluated complies
with all the terms and conditions in the call for bid and is the most
advantageous to the Government.
To guarantee the faithful performance of the contractor, he shall,

prior to the award, post a performance bond, in an amount to be
established in accordance with the rules and regulations to be
promulgated under Section 12 of this Decree.
All awards and contracts duly executed in accordance with the

provisions of this Decree shall be subject to the approval of the
Minister of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, the
Minister of Public Highways, or the Minister of Energy, as the case
may be.
151 Pres. Decree No. 1594 (1978), Implementing Rules and

Regulations.
152Rollo (G.R. No. 202409) p. 60.
153 Pres. Decree No. 1594 (1978), sec. 3(b) provides:
Section 3. Prequalification of Prospective Contractors. - A

prospective contractor may be prequalified to offer his bid or
tender for a construction project only if he meets the following
requirements.
....
b. Technical Requirements. - The prospective contractor must meet

the following technical requirements to be established in
accordance with the rules and regulations to be promulgated
pursuant to Section 12 of this Decree, to enable him to
satisfactorily prosecute the subject project:
1. Competence and experience of the contractor in managing

projects similar to the subject project.
2. Competence and experience of the contractor's key personnel to

be assigned to the subject project.
3. Availability and commitment of the contractor's equipment to be

used for the subject project.
154 Pres. Decree No. 1594 (1978), Implementing Rules and

Regulations.
155Rollo (G.R. No. 202409) p. 61.
157Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) p. 68.
158 Presidential Decree No. 1594 (1978), Implementing Rules and
Regulations, sec. CI 4 provides, in part:
CI 4 ADVANCE PAYMENT
1. The Government shall, upon a written request of the contractor

which shall be submitted as a contract document, make an
advance payment to the contractor in an amount equal to fifteen
percent (15%) of the total contract price, to be made in lump sum
or at the most two installments according to a schedule specified in
the Instructions to Bidders and other relevant Tender Documents.
2. The advance payment shall be made only upon the submission

to and acceptance by the Government of an irrevocable standby
letter of credit of equivalent value from a commercial bank or a
guarantee payment bond, callable on demand, issued by a surety
or insurance company duly licensed by the Office of the Insurance
Commissioner and confirmed by the implementing agency.
159 416 Phil. 884 (2001) [Per J. Buena, En Banc].
160 Id. at 900-901.
161Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) pp. 68-69.
162Uriarte v. People of the Philippines, 540 Phil. 477, 494 (2006)
[Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].
163Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) p. 265.
164Ambit, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 669 Phil. 32 (2011) [Per J.
Villarama, Jr., First Division].
165 Pres. Decree No. 1445 (1978), Government Auditing Code of
the Philippines.
166Rollo (G.R. No. 202408), p. 254.
167Rollo (G.R. No. 202412) pp. 60-61.
168 Id. at 61.
169 Id. at 60-61.
170Rollo (G.R. No. 202412) p. 62.
171Rollo (G.R. No. 202408) p. 256.
172Rollo (G.R. No. 202412) p. 62.
173 Pres. Decree No. 1445 (1978), sec. 88(l).
174Rollo (G.R. No. 202412) p. 62.
175 259 Phil. 794 (1989) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
176 Id. at 801.
177 Id. at 801-802.
178 Id. at 801.
179Escara v. People, 501 Phil. 532 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago,
First Division]; Alfonso v. Office of the President, 548 Phil. 615

(2007) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Second Division]; Cesa v. Office of
the Ombudsman, 576 Phil. 345 (2008) [Per J. Quisumbing, En
Banc]; Office of the Ombudsman v. Espina, G.R. No. 213500,
March 15, 2017 [Per Curiam, First Division].
Back to Home | Back to Main
Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

Abubakar v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Abubakar v. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abubakar v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Batangas Lawyers

One of the leading law !rms in the Calabarzon Region

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

June 2018 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

G.R. No. 202408, June 27, 2018 - FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, Petitioner, v.

G.R. No. 202408, June 27, 2018

FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

G.R. No. 202409

ULAMA S. BARAGUIR Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

ChanRobles CPA Review

DATUKAN M. GUIANI Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

The rules on competitive public bidding and those concerning the

Certiorari1 concerning alleged anomalies in the implementation of

Abubakar, Baraguir, and Guiani were public officials of the Department of

Guiani v. Sandiganbayan9 is the procedural antecedent of this case.

CERILLES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL DPWH-ARMM.10

First, an overpayment amounting to P17,684,000.00 was incurred on nine (9)

Section 88(l) of Presidential Decree No. 1445.16

A.C. No. 11550, June 04,

ROBLES, ASSISTANT CITY another detailed engineering survey.23

FRANCISCO Y VILLAGRACIA, Projects.29

A.C. No. 12011, June 26,

A.M. No. RTJ-18-2523 the issuance of the certificates of mobilization.35

(Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 14-

REPRESENTED BY ATTY. before affixing his signature.36

G.R. No. 234651, June 06, Project

G.R.No. 202324, June 04, Decree No. 1445 as legal basis.49

2018 - CONCHITA GLORIA

ARMM's inspection was more extensive.50

3. In Criminal Case No. 24971, for failure of the prosecution to

VILLALOBOS, Accused- (4)

With regard to the alleged early mobilization of contractors prior to the

petitioner Guiani with Arce Engineering Services.78

G.R. No. 224626, June 27,

G.R. No. 223566, June 27,

G.R. No. 224849, June 06,

substantiated.92 In determining whether the case falls under the exception,

In criminal as well as in civil cases, it has frequently been held that

Liberality has been applied in criminal cases but under exceptional

2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

ARNOLD DAVID Y CRUZ @

G.R. No. 206331, June 04,

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT extrinsic evidence of "clear showing of intentional discrimination."115 The

2018 - FEDERAL EXPRESS shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful

[i]f the failure of prosecutors to enforce the criminal

A.M. No. P-18-3843 in the original, citations omitted)

CASTRO, Respondent. probable cause:

A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no

Although this power and prerogative of the Fiscal, to determine

2018 - LOLITA ESPIRITU

SPS. RAMON, SR. AND discharge of his functions.131

REYNALDO AND YOLANDA

COURT, BRANCH 107, QUEZON

2018 - CONSOLIDATED injury or damage which must be established by evidence. [T]he

Appellee, v. RODOLFO together, proof of actual injury or damage is required.

GRABADOR, JR., ROGER

AND ALEX ABIERRA, Accused,;

Construction was also referred as "Al Mohandis Construction," PMA