FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 192591. June 29, 2011.]

EFREN L. ALVAREZ , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J : p

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to reverse and set aside
the Decision 1 dated November 16, 2009 and Resolution 2 dated June 9, 2010
of the Sandiganbayan's Fourth Division finding the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. CEaDAc

Petitioner Efren L. Alvarez, at the time of the subject transaction, was

the Mayor of the Municipality (now Science City) of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija. In
July 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Muñoz under Resolution No. 136,
S-95 invited Mr. Jess Garcia, President of the Australian-Professional, Inc.
(API) in connection with the municipal government's plan to construct a four-
storey shopping mall ("Wag-wag Shopping Mall"), a project included in its
Multi-Development Plan. Subsequently, it approved the adoption of the
project under the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangement in the amount
of P240 million, to be constructed on a 4,000-square-meter property of the
municipal government which is located at the back of the Municipal Hall. API
submitted its proposal on November 7, 1995. 3
On February 9, 1996, an Invitation for proposals to be submitted within
thirty (30) days, was published in Pinoy tabloid. On April 12, 1996, the Pre-
qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) recommended the
approval of the proposal submitted by the lone bidder, API. On April 15,
1996, the SB passed a resolution authorizing petitioner to enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with API for the project. Consequently, on
September 12, 1996, petitioner signed the MOA with API, represented by its
President Jesus V. Garcia, for the construction of the Wag-Wag Shopping Mall
under the BOT scheme whereby API undertook to finish the construction
within 730 calendar days. 4
On February 14, 1997, the groundbreaking ceremony was held at the
site once occupied by government structures which included the old Motor
Pool, the old Health Center and a semi-concrete one-storey building that
housed the Department of Agriculture, BIR Assessor, old Post Office,
Commission on Elections and Department of Social Welfare and
Development. These structures were demolished at the instance of
petitioner to give way to the construction project. Thereafter, API proceeded
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 with excavation on the area (3-meter deep) and a billboard was put up
informing the public about the project and its contractor. However, no mall
was constructed as API stopped work within just a few months.
On August 10, 2006, petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan
for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 (SB-06-CRM-0389), under the
following Information:
That on or about 12 September 1996, and sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in the then Municipality (now Science City) of
Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused EFREN L. ALVAREZ, a high ranking public
official, being then the Mayor of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, taking advantage
of his official position and while in the discharge of his official or
administrative functions, and committing the offense in relation to his
office, acting with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence or
manifest partiality did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally give the Australian-Professional Incorporated (API)
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference, by awarding to the
latter the contract for the construction of Wag-Wag Shopping Mall in
the amount of Two Hundred Forty Million Pesos (Php240,000,000.00)
under a Buil[d]-Operate-Transfer Agreement, notwithstanding the fact
that API was and is not a duly-licensed construction company as per
records of the Philippine Construction Accreditation Board (PCAB),
which construction license is a pre-requisite for API to engage in
construction of works for the said municipal government and that API
does not have the experience and financial qualifications to undertake
such costly project among others, to the damage and prejudice of the
public service.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

On September 22, 2006, petitioner was duly arraigned, pleading not guilty
to the charge.
At the trial, petitioner testified that during his term as Mayor of Muñoz,
the municipal government planned to borrow money from GSIS to finance
the proposed Wag-Wag Shopping Mall project. He learned about API when
then Vice-Mayor Romeo Ruiz and other SB members showed him a copy of
publication/advertisement in the Manila Bulletin and Business Bulletin
showing that API was then building similar BOT projects for construction of
shopping malls in Lemery, Batangas (P150 million) and in Calamba, Laguna
(P300 million). Because it will not entail government funds and is an
alternative to availment of GSIS loan, petitioner appointed Vice-Mayor Ruiz
and other SB members to study the matter. A resolution was subsequently
passed by the SB inviting API for detailed information on their mall projects.
Thereafter, the SB approved the construction of Wag-Wag Shopping Mall
under BOT scheme, which was favorably endorsed by the Municipal
Development Council. A public hearing was also conducted by Municipal
Engineer Armando E. Miranda. On November 8, 1995, the municipal
government received the "unsolicited proposal" of API for the construction of
Wag-Wag Shopping Mall. For three weeks, an Invitation to Bid was published
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 in the Pinoy tabloid. But it was the lone bidder, API, whose proposal was
eventually recommended by the PBAC and approved by the SB. 6 ACaEcH

Petitioner emphasized that not a single centavo was spent by the

municipal government for the Wag-Wag Shopping Mall project. It was an
unsolicited proposal under the BOT law. API was required to submit pre-
qualification statements containing, among others, their accomplished
projects. Eventually the SB passed a resolution authorizing him to enter into
the MOA with API. The municipal government issued the notice of award to
API on September 16, 1996 in which it required the contractor to post
notices prior to the start of the project and to submit other requirements
such as performance bond. However, API did not comply as its counsel, Atty.
Lydia Y. Marciano said these are not required under the BOT law (R.A. No.
7718) since there will be no government undertaking, equity or subsidy in
the project. After securing an environmental clearance certificate from
DENR, the groundbreaking ceremony was held on February 1, 1997. API, as
promised, paid P500,000.00 as disturbance or relocation fee considering that
the municipal government has caused the demolition of old buildings at the
site. A certification 7 of such payment was issued by City Treasurer
Luzviminda P. De Leon and City Accountant June Franklyn A. Fernandez on
February 5, 2007. The materials were then utilized for the construction of the
new motor pool and new City Library. Thereafter, API began excavating an
area of 30 x 30 meters (1,000 sq. ms.), about 3 meters deep. However, only
the sales office was constructed. The project was not completed and API
gave as excuse the 1997 financial crisis. They wrote a letter to Mr. Garcia
reminding him of the 730-days completion period but then he was nowhere
to be found and did not answer the letter. Hence, the SB authorized him to
file a case against API, and later also granted him authority to enter into a
compromise agreement in Civil Case No. 161-SD 98). Their compromise
agreement was approved but they could not find a copy anymore because
the Regional Trial Court at Balok, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija where the
settlement was done, was burned down. 8
On cross-examination, petitioner claimed that had the municipal
government then borrowed funds from the GSIS, they envisioned annual
return of P5 million from a P40 million loan for a modest mall (but for an
area of 4,000 square meters, the loan would have to be P80 million). For a
period of 8 years, the municipality would have an income of P40 million and
the GSIS can be paid. As to the contractor's financial capability, it presented
a credit line of P150 million to P250 million for Australian-Professionals
Realty, Inc. (APRI). Petitioner clarified that API and APRI were one and the
same entity having the same board of directors, but when asked if he
verified this from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), he
answered in the negative. Petitioner asserted that it was the Vice-Mayor who
is accountable for this project as he headed the working panel. As to
whether API was a licensed contractor, he admitted that he did not verify
this before awarding the BOT contract involving an infrastructure project. He
insisted that the Wag-Wag Shopping Mall Project, being an unsolicited
proposal under BOT law, is exempt from the pre-qualification requirement
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 although they still conducted it. As far as he knows, the project proponent in
this case is the Municipality of Muñoz. However, petitioner admitted that he
is not familiar with the BOT law. He also admitted that the Invitation
published stated a shorter period of submission of proposal (30 days instead
of 60 days provided under the BOT law) and that he just signed the said
notice without consulting their legal counsel. 9
On November 16, 2009, the Sandiganbayan rendered judgment
convicting the petitioner after finding that: (1) petitioner railroaded the
project; (2) there was no competitive bidding; (3) the contractor was totally
unqualified to undertake the project; and (4) the provisions of the BOT law
and relevant rules and regulations were disregarded and not followed. The
said court also found that the municipal government suffered damage and
prejudice with the resulting loss of several of its buildings and offices, and
having deployed its resources including equipment, personnel and financial
outlay for fuel and repairs in the demolition of the said structures. Damage
suffered by the municipal government was quantified at P4.8 million, or 2%
of the total project cost of P240 million, representing the amount of
liquidated damages due under the performance security had the same been
posted by the contractor as required by law. As to the allegation of
conspiracy, the Sandiganbayan held that such was adequately shown by the
evidence, noting that this is one case where the Ombudsman should have
included the entire Municipal Council in the information for the latter had
conspired if not abetted all the actions of the petitioner in his dealings with
API to the damage and prejudice of the municipality.
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, accused Efren L. Alvarez is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for [sic] violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No.
3019 and is sentenced to suffer in prison the penalty of 6 years and 1
month to 10 years. He also has to suffer perpetual disqualification from
holding any public office and to indemnify the City Government of
Muñoz (now Science), Nueva Ecija the amount of Four Million Eight
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php4,800,000.00) less the Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) API earlier paid the municipality as
damages. DITEAc

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED. 10

The Sandiganbayan likewise denied petitioner's motion for

reconsideration. It ruled that upon examination of Section 4-A of R.A. No.
6957 as amended by R.A. No. 7718, it was clear that petitioner, with
manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence, failed to comply with
the requirements and procedures for competitive bidding in unsolicited
proposals. It also reiterated that API was a contractor and not a mere project
proponent; hence, the license requirement applies to it. Petitioner's defense
that he merely executed the resolutions of the SB was also rejected because
as Chief Executive of the Municipality of Muñoz, it was his duty to protect the
credits, rights and properties of the municipality and to exercise efficient,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 effective and economical governance for the general welfare of the
municipality and its inhabitants under Section 444, R.A. No. 7160 (Local
Government Code of 1991). Significant acts of the petitioner also showed
that he opted to enter into the contract with API despite reckless disregard of
the law.
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
1. Whether or not the Honorable Sandiganbayan failed to observe
the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in convicting
the Accused-Petitioner;
2. Whether or not the Honorable Sandiganbayan failed to
appreciate the legal intent of the BOT project;

3. Whether or not the Honorable Sandiganbayan utterly failed to

appreciate that the BOT was a lawful project of the Sangguniang
Bayan and not the project of the Mayor Accused-Petitioner
herein; and

4. Whether or not the Honorable Sandiganbayan utterly failed to

appreciate that there was no damage on the then Municipality of
Muñoz as contemplated by law, to warrant the conviction of the
Accused-Petitioner. 11

We deny the petition.

Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.
To be convicted under the said provision, the following elements must be
established:
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial or official functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
inexcusable negligence; and
3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including
the government, or giving any private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
functions. 12

In this case, the information alleged that while being a public official
and in the discharge of his official functions and taking advantage of such
position, petitioner "acting with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence or manifest partiality" unlawfully gave API "unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference" by awarding to it the contract for the construction
of the Wag-Wag Shopping Mall under the BOT scheme despite the fact that it
was not a licensed contractor and "does not have the experience and
financial qualifications to undertake such costly project, among others, to the
damage and prejudice of the public service."
Petitioner argues that he cannot be held liable under Section 3 (e) of
R.A. No. 3019 since the Municipality of Muñoz did not disburse any money
and the buildings demolished on the site of construction have been found to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 be a nuisance and declared structurally unsafe, as per notice issued by the
Municipal Building Official. He points out that in fact, a demolition permit has
been issued upon his application in behalf of the municipal government. API
also paid P500,000.00 demolition/relocation fee. ASHEca

We disagree.
This Court has clarified that the use of the disjunctive word "or"
connotes that either act of (a) "causing any undue injury to any party,
including the Government"; and (b) "giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference," qualifies as a violation of
Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. 13 The use of the disjunctive "or"
connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same time. In other
words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction. 14
As we explained in Bautista v. Sandiganbayan: 15

Indeed, Sec. 3, par. (e), RA 3019, as amended, provides as one of

its elements that the public officer should have acted by causing any
undue injury to any party, including the government, or by giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions. The use of the disjunctive term "or"
connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), or as
aptly held in Santiago , as two (2) different modes of committing the
offense. This does not, however, indicate that each mode constitutes a
distinct offense, but rather, that an accused may be charged under
either mode or under both. 16 (Underscoring supplied.)
The Court En Banc likewise held in Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan 17 that
proof of the extent or quantum of damage is not essential. It is sufficient
that the injury suffered or benefits received can be perceived to be
substantial enough and not merely negligible. 18 Under the second mode of
the crime defined in Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 therefore, damage is not
required. In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that
the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise
of his official, administrative or judicial functions. 19
The third element of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed
in three ways, i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with the
prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 is enough to
convict. 20 Damage or injury caused by petitioner's acts though alleged in
the information, thus need not be proven for as long as the act of giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference either through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence was
satisfactorily established. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the prosecution
was able to successfully demonstrate that he acted with manifest partiality
and gross inexcusable negligence in awarding the BOT contract to an
unlicensed and financially unqualified private entity.
R.A. No. 6957 as amended by R.A. No. 7718, requires that a BOT
project be awarded to the bidder who has satisfied the minimum
requirements, and met the technical, financial, organizational and legal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 standards provided in the BOT Law. Section 5 of said law provides:
SEC. 5. Public Bidding of Projects. — . . .
In the case of a build-operate-and-transfer arrangement, the
contract shall be awarded to the bidder who, having satisfied the
minimum financial, technical, organizational and legal
standards required by this Act, has submitted the lowest bid and
most favorable terms for the project, based on the present value of its
proposed tolls, fees, rentals and charges over a fixed term for the
facility to be constructed, rehabilitated, operated and maintained
according to the prescribed minimum design and performance
standards, plans and specifications. . . . (Emphasis supplied.) acCITS

Foremost of these minimum legal standards is the license accreditation

of a contractor required under R.A. No. 4566 otherwise known as the
Contractors' License Law. The Philippine Licensing Board for Contractors
created under said law is mandated to ensure that prospective contractors
possess "at least two years of experience in the construction industry, and
knowledge of the building, safety, health and lien laws of the Republic of the
Philippines and the rudimentary administrative principles of the contracting
business" which it deems necessary "for the safety of the contracting
business of the public." 21 In fact, a contractor must show that he is licensed
by the board before his bid will be considered. 22 As a general rule therefore,
the prospective contractor for government infrastructure projects must have
been duly licensed as such pursuant to R.A. No. 4566. API not being a
licensed contractor as per the Certification 23 issued by Philippine
Contractors Accreditation Board (PCAB) board secretary Aaron C. Tablazon,
is thus not qualified to participate in the bidding and much less be awarded
the BOT project for the construction of Wag-Wag Shopping Mall.
Petitioner claimed that there was compliance with the law saying that
API was not a contractor but a mere project proponent, for which a license is
not a requisite to undertake BOT projects. But the Sandiganbayan correctly
rejected this theory as the clear terms of the MOA itself confirm that API
itself undertook to construct the Wag-Wag Shopping Mall, thus:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS

I. THE PROJECT SITE

1. The FIRST PARTY [Municipality of Muñoz] shall make available
unto the SECOND PARTY a FOUR THOUSAND (4,000) SQUARE
METERS lot located at Muñoz, Nueva Ecija where the SECOND
PARTY [API] shall build for the FIRST PARTY a commercial
building in accordance with this Memorandum of Agreement, RA
6957 AND RA 7718 as well as RA 7160 otherwise known as the
Local Government Code of 1991.
II. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

1. The commercial building, to be known as the WAG-WAG

SHOPPING MALL, shall be constructed by the SECOND PARTY
strictly in accordance with plans, specifications, engineering and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 construction designs prepared by the SECOND PARTY and duly
reviewed and approved by the FIRST PARTY. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
III. CONSTRUCTION

xxx xxx xxx

3. The FIRST PARTY shall issue a written Notice to Proceed in favor
of the SECOND PARTY. The SECOND PARTY, shall mobilize within
60 days from clearing of the site for official groundbreaking.
4. The SECOND PARTY hereby warrants that it shall finish the
construction of the WAG-WAG SHOPPING MALL within SEVEN
HUNDRED THIRTY (730) CALENDAR DAYS counted from the date
of the official groundbreaking.
xxx xxx xxx
6. . . . Compliance with all existing laws, rules and regulations
regarding the construction of the project shall be [the]
responsibility of the SECOND PARTY itself to save and hold the
FIRST PARTY harmless from any and all liabilities in respect
thereto or arising from violations thereof.
IV. BUILD-OPERATE-AND-TRANSFER SCHEME
1. The WAG-WAG SHOPPING MALL be constructed by the SECOND
PARTY for the FIRST PARTY in accordance with this Memorandum
of Agreement and with the Build-Operate-and-Transfer Scheme
outlined RA 6957 and RA 7718. This Agreement is of course
subject to the provisions of RA 7160 and other pertinent laws.
Cdpr

xxx xxx xxx 24

Section 2 of R.A. No. 6957 as amended by R.A. No. 7718, defined the
terms "Contractor" and "Project Proponent" as follows:
(k) Project Proponent — The private sector entity which shall
have contractual responsibility for the project and which shall have an
adequate financial base to implement said project consisting of equity
and firm commitments from reputable financial institutions to provide,
upon award, sufficient credit lines to cover the total estimated cost of
the project.

(l) Contractor — Any entity accredited under Philippine laws

which may or may not be the project proponent and which shall
undertake the actual construction and/or supply of equipment for the
project.

Aside from the clear language of the MOA, the attendant circumstances
unmistakably showed that API is both the project proponent and contractor
of the BOT project, as it was the one who submitted the proposal and bid to
the SB, through its President executed the MOA with petitioner, deployed
manpower and equipment for the clearing of the site, conducted
groundbreaking, performed excavation and initial construction works, and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 took responsibility for the stoppage and non-completion of the project when
it entered into a compromise with the Municipality of Muñoz. It is to be noted
that even as project proponent, API failed to meet the minimum financial
standard considering that it has no adequate financial base to implement the
Wag-Wag Shopping Mall project. API's paid-up capital was only P2.5 million,
while its stand-by credit line issued by Brilliant Star Capital Lending Co., Inc.
was only for the amount of P150 million, way below the P240 million total
project cost.
While API's proposal passed through the pre-qualification stage, it
failed to submit, except for the SEC registration certificate, a complete set of
documents required for a BOT project, in accordance with the BOT Law
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR):
Sec. 5.4. Pre-qualification Requirements . — To pre-
qualify, a project proponent must comply with the following
requirements:
a. Legal Requirements
i. For projects to be implemented under the BOT scheme whose
operations require a public utility franchise, the project
proponent and the facility operator must be a Filipino or, if a
corporation, must be duly registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) and owned up to at least sixty
percent (60%) by Filipinos.
xxx xxx xxx
v. If the contractor to be engaged by the project proponent to
undertake the construction works of the project under bidding
needs to be pre-identified as prescribed in the published
Invitation to Pre-qualify and Bid and is a Filipino, it must be duly
licensed and accredited by the Philippine Contractors
Accreditation Board (PCAB). However, if the contractor is a
foreigner, PCAB registration will not be required at pre-
qualification stage, rather it will be one of the contract
milestones.
b. Experience or Track Record: The proponent-applicant must
possess adequate experience in terms of the following: EaHDcS

i. Firm Experience: By itself or through the member-firms in case of

a joint venture/consortium or through a contractor(s) which the
project proponent may have engaged for the project, the project
proponent and/or its contractor(s) must have successfully
undertaken a project(s) similar or related to the subject
infrastructure/development project to be bid. The individual firms
and/or their contractor(s) may individually specialize on any or
several phases of the project(s). A joint venture/consortium
proponent shall be evaluated based on the individual or
collective experience of the member-firms of the joint
venture/consortium and of the contractor(s) that it has engaged
for the project.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 xxx xxx xxx
vi. Key Personnel Experience : The key personnel of the proponent
and/or its contractor(s) must have sufficient experience in the
relevant aspect of schemes similar or related to the subject
project, as specified by the Agency/LGU.
e. Financial Capability: The project proponent must have adequate
capability to sustain the financing requirements for the
detailed engineering design, construction and/or operation and
maintenance phases of the project, as the case may be. For
purposes of pre-qualification, this capability shall be measured in
terms of:
(i) proof of the ability of the project proponent and/or the
consortium to provide a minimum amount of equity to the
project measured in terms of the net worth of the company or in
the case of joint ventures or consortia the combined net worth of
members or a set-aside deposit equivalent to the minimum
equity required, and
(ii) a letter testimonial from reputable banks attesting that the
project proponent and/or members of the consortium are banking
with them, and that they are in good financial standing. The
government Agency/LGU concerned shall determine on a project-
to-project basis, and before pre-qualification, the minimum
amount of equity needed. In addition, the Agency/LGU will inform
the proponents of the minimum debt-equity ratio required by the
monetary authority for projects to be financed by foreign loans.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied.)

We have held that the Implementing Rules provide for the unyielding
standards the PBAC should apply to determine the financial capability of a
bidder for pre-qualification purposes: (i) proof of the ability of the project
proponent and/or the consortium to provide a minimum amount of equity to
the project and (ii) a letter testimonial from reputable banks attesting that
the project proponent and/or members of the consortium are banking with
them, that they are in good financial standing, and that they have adequate
resources. The evident intent of these standards is to protect the integrity
and insure the viability of the project by seeing to it that the proponent has
the financial capability to carry it out. 25 Unfortunately, none of these
requirements was submitted by API during the pre-qualification stage. ADETca

Petitioner assails the Sandiganbayan for allegedly failing to appreciate

the legal intent of the BOT Law which allows contracts on a negotiated basis
for unsolicited proposals like the Wag-Wag Shopping Mall project. It asserts
that the procedure and requirements for bidding have been complied with
when the Municipality of Muñoz caused the publication of the invitation to
submit comparative bids for the BOT project was published in Pinoy, a
newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks. Since no
comparative bid/proposal was received within sixty (60) days, the BOT
project was rightfully awarded to API, the original proponent.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 The contention fails.
Unsolicited proposals refer to project proposals submitted by the
private sector to undertake infrastructure or development projects which
may be entered into by a government agency or local government unit. 26
Section 4-a of R.A. No. 6957 as amended by R.A. No. 7718 governs
unsolicited proposals:
SEC. 4-A. Unsolicited Proposals. — Unsolicited proposals for
projects may be accepted by any government agency or local
government unit on a negotiated basis: Provided, That, all the following
conditions are met: (1) such projects involved a new concept or
technology and/or are not part of the list of priority projects, (2) no
direct government guarantee, subsidy or equity is required, and (3) the
government agency or local government unit has invited by
publication, for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general
circulation, comparative or competitive proposals, and no other
proposal is received for a period of sixty (60) working days:
Provided, further, That in the event another proponent submits a lower
price proposal, the original proponent shall have the right to match
that price within thirty (30) working days.

We note that it was the SB which invited the API to provide information
on the construction of a shopping mall project under the BOT scheme. It
cannot be said thus that the development project originated from the
proponent/contractor. Nonetheless, even if the proposal is deemed
unsolicited, still the requirements of the law have not been complied with.
The IRR specified the requirement of publication of the invitation for
submission of proposals, as follows:
SEC. 10.11. Invitation for Comparative Proposals. — The
Agency/LGU shall publish the invitation for comparative or competitive
proposals only after ICC/Local Sanggunian issues a no objection
clearance of the draft contract. The invitation for comparative or
competitive proposals should be published at least once every week for
three (3) weeks in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation. It
shall indicate the time, which should not be earlier than the last
date of publication, and place where tender/bidding
documents could be obtained. It shall likewise explicitly specify a
time of sixty (60) working days reckoned from the date of
issuance of the tender/bidding documents upon which proposals
shall be received. Beyond said deadline, no proposals shall be
accepted. A pre-bid conference shall be conducted ten (10) working
days after the issuance of the tender/bidding documents. (Emphasis
supplied.)

The above provision highlighted other violations in the bidding

procedure for the subject BOT project. First , there was no prior approval by
the Investment Coordinating Committee of the National Economic
Development Authority (ICC-NEDA) of the Wag-Wag Shopping Mall project.
Under the BOT Law, local projects to be implemented by the local
government units concerned costing above P200 million shall be submitted
for confirmation to the ICC-NEDA. 27 Such requisite approval shall be applied
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 for and should be secured by the head of the LGU prior to the call for bids for
the project. 28 Second , the law requires publication in a newspaper of
general circulation. To be a newspaper of general circulation, it is enough
that it is published for the dissemination of local news and general
information, that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers,
and that it is published at regular intervals. Over and above all these, the
newspaper must be available to the public in general, and not just to a select
few chosen by the publisher. 29 Petitioner did not submit in evidence the
affidavit of the publisher attesting to Pinoy tabloid as such newspaper of
general circulation. And third, even assuming that Pinoy was indeed a
newspaper of general circulation, the invitation published indicated a shorter
period of submission of comparative proposals, only thirty (30) days instead
of the prescribed sixty (60) days counted from the date of issuance of tender
documents. EcDATH

There is likewise no showing that API complied with the submission of a

complete proposal required under the IRR:
SEC. 10.5 Submission of a Complete Proposal. — For a
proposal to be considered by the Agency/LGU, the proponent has to
submit a complete proposal which shall include a feasibility study,
company profile as outlined in Annex A, and the basic contractual
terms and conditions on the obligations of the proponent and the
government. The Agency/LGU shall acknowledge receipt of the
proposal and advice the proponent whether the proposal is complete or
incomplete. If incomplete, it shall indicate what information is lacking
or necessary. (Emphasis supplied.)

As correctly pointed out by the Sandiganbayan, API's proposal showed

that it lacked the above requirements as it did not include a company profile
and the basic contractual terms and conditions on the obligations of the
proponent/contractor and the government. Had such company profile been
required of API, the municipal government could have been apprised of the
fact that said contractor/proponent had been in existence for only three
months at that time and had not yet completed a project, although APRI,
which actually undertook the Calamba and Lemery shopping centers also
under BOT scheme, is allegedly the same entity as API which have the same
set of incorporators and directors. But more important, the municipality
could have realized earlier, on the basis of financial statements and
experience in construction included in the company profile, that API could
not possibly comply with the huge financial outlay for the Wag-Wag
Shopping Mall project. It could have also noted the fact that the aforesaid
BOT shopping centers in Lemery and Calamba being implemented by APRI at
that time were not yet finished or completed. In any event, such existing
BOT contract of APRI with another LGU neither justified non-compliance by
API with the submission of a complete proposal for the Wag-Wag Shopping
Mall project for a competent evaluation by the PBAC.
Indeed, contrary to petitioner's stance, the process of unsolicited
proposals does involve public bidding where, in the end, the government is
free to choose the bid or proposal most advantageous to it. 30 Thus we held
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 in Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation v. DOTC: 31

The protestation by AEDC of our characterization of the process

on unsolicited proposal as public bidding is specious.

We call attention to the following relevant sections of Rule 10 of

the IRR specifically on Unsolicited Proposals:
Sec. 10.9. Negotiation With the Original Proponent. —
Immediately after ICC/Local Sanggunian's clearance of the project, the
Agency/LGU shall proceed with the in-depth negotiation of the project
scope, implementation arrangements and concession agreement, all
of which will be used in the Terms of Reference for the
solicitation of comparative proposals. The Agency/LGU and the
proponent are given ninety (90) days upon receipt of ICC's approval of
the project to conclude negotiations. The Agency/LGU and the original
proponent shall negotiate in good faith. However, should there be
unresolvable differences during the negotiations, the Agency/LGU shall
have the option to reject the proposal and bid out the project. On the
other hand, if the negotiation is successfully concluded, the original
proponent shall then be required to reformat and resubmit its
proposal in accordance with the requirements of the Terms of
Reference to facilitate comparison with the comparative
proposals. The Agency/LGU shall validate the reformatted proposal if
it meets the requirements of the TOR prior to the issuance of the
invitation for comparative proposals.
Sec. 10.10. Tender Documents . — The qualification and
tender documents shall be prepared along the lines specified
under Rules 4 and 5 hereof. The concession agreement that will be
part of the tender documents will be considered final and non-
negotiable by the challengers. Proprietary information shall, however,
be respected, protected and treated with utmost confidentiality. As
such, it shall not form part of the bidding/tender and related
documents. HIACac

xxx xxx xxx

After the concerned government agency or local government unit

(LGU) has received, evaluated, and approved the pursuance of the
project subject of the unsolicited proposal, the subsequent steps are
fundamentally similar to the bidding process conducted for ordinary
government projects.

The three principles of public bidding are: the offer to the public,
an opportunity for competition, and a basis for an exact comparison of
bids, all of which are present in Sec. 10.9 to Sec. 10.16 of the
IRR. First, the project is offered to the public through the publication of
the invitation for comparative proposals. Second, the challengers are
given the opportunity to compete for the project through the
submission of their tender/bid documents. And third, the exact
comparison of the bids is ensured by using the same
requirements/qualifications/criteria for the original proponent and the
challengers, to wit: the proposals of the original proponent and
the challengers must all be in accordance with the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 requirements of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the project ;
the original proponent and the challengers are required to post bid
bonds equal in amount and form; and the qualifications of the original
proponent and the challengers shall be evaluated by the concerned
agency/LGU using the same evaluation criteria. (Additional emphasis
supplied.)

In this case, the only attempt made to comply with the bidding
requirements is the publication of the invitation which, as already
mentioned, was even defective. As noted by the Sandiganbayan, there was
no in-depth negotiation as to the project scope, implementation and
arrangements and concession agreement, which are supposed to be used in
the Terms of Reference (TOR). Such TOR would have provided the interested
competitors the basis for their proposed cost, and its absence in this case is
an indication that any possible competing proposal was intentionally avoided
or altogether eliminated. The essence of competition in public bidding is that
the bidders are placed on equal footing. 32 In the award of government
contracts, the law requires a competitive public bidding. This is reasonable
because "[a] competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest
by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open competition. It is
a mechanism that enables the government agency to avoid or preclude
anomalies in the execution of public contracts." 33
Despite API's obvious lack of financial qualification and absence of
basic terms and conditions in the submitted proposal, petitioner who chaired
the PBAC, recommended the approval of API's proposal just forty-five (45)
days after the last publication of the invitation for comparative proposals,
and subsequently requested the SB to pass a resolution authorizing him to
enter into a MOA with API as the lone bidder for the project. It was only in the
MOA that the details of the construction, terms and conditions of the parties'
obligations, were laid down at the time API was already awarded the project.
Even the MOA provisions remain vague as to the parameters of the project,
which the Sandiganbayan found as placing API "at an arbitrary position
where it can do as it pleases without being accountable to the municipality
in any way whatsoever." True enough, when API failed to execute the
construction works and abandoned the project, the municipality found itself
at extreme disadvantage without recourse to a performance security that API
likewise failed to submit.
Petitioner as the local chief executive failed to ensure that API which
was awarded the BOT contract, will submit such other requirements
specified under the IRR:
Sec. 11.7. Conditions for Approval of Contract. — The Head of
Agency/LGU shall ensure that all of the following conditions have been
complied with before approving the contract:

a. Submission of the required performance security as

prescribed under Section 12.7 hereof;
b. Proof of sufficient equity from the investors and firm
commitments from reputable financial institution to provide sufficient
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 credit lines to cover the total estimated cost of the project;

c. ICC clearance of the contract on a no-objection basis; ICTDEa

Failure by the winning project proponent to submit the

requirements prescribed under items a, b and c above within the time
period specified by the concerned Agency/LGU in the Notice of Award
or failure to execute the contract within the specified time shall result
in the disqualification of the bidder, as well as the forfeiture of
the bid security of the bidder.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 12.7. Performance Guarantee for Construction Works . —
To guarantee the faithful performance by the project
proponent of its obligations under the contract including the
prosecution of the construction works related to the project,
the project proponent shall post in favor of the Agency/LGU concerned,
within the time and under the terms prescribed under the project
contract, a performance security in the form of cash, manager's
check, cashier's check, bank draft or guarantee confirmed by a local
bank (in the case of foreign bidders bonded by a foreign bank), letter of
credit issued by a reputable bank, surety bond callable on demand
issued by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) or by
surety or insurance companies duly accredited by the Office of the
Insurance Commissioner, or a combination thereof, in accordance with
the following schedules:

a. Cash, manager's check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter

of credit, bank draft — a minimum of two percent (2%) of the total
Project Cost.
b. Bank Guarantee — a minimum of five percent (5%) of the
total Project Cost.

c. Surety Bond — a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total

Project Cost. (Emphasis supplied.)

In the Notice of Award dated September 16, 1996, petitioner directed

API to submit the above requirements. However, API's counsel, Atty. Lydia Y.
Marciano, wrote in reply that such requirements do not apply because API's
project does not involve any government undertaking. API at that point
should have been disqualified and its bid security forfeited, pursuant to
Section 11.7 of the IRR. Yet, API was allowed to proceed with the execution
of the project albeit only the site clearing, excavation and construction of a
sales office were accomplished.
Under the facts established, it is clear that petitioner gave unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference to API considering that said
proponent/contractor was not financially and technically qualified for the
BOT project awarded to it, and without complying with the requirements of
bidding and contract approval for BOT projects under existing laws, rules and
regulations.
The word "unwarranted" means lacking adequate or official support;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason.
"Advantage" means a more favorable or improved position or condition;
benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action.
"Preference" signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or
estimation above another. 34 As to "partiality," "bad faith," and "gross
inexcusable negligence," we have explained the meaning of these terms, as
follows: EHCcIT

"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a

disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than
as they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some
motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross
negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the
want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where
there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally
with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other
persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even
inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own
property." 35

We sustain and affirm the Sandiganbayan in holding that petitioner

violated Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, and that he cannot shield himself
from criminal liability simply because the SB passed the necessary
resolutions adopting the BOT project and authorizing him to enter into the
MOA. We find no error or grave abuse in its ruling, which we herein quote:
It is apparent that the unwarranted benefit in this case lies in the
very fact that API was allowed to present its proposal without
compliance of [sic ] the requirements provided under the relevant laws
and rules. To begin with, the municipal government never conducted a
public bidding prior to the execution of the contract. The project was
immediately awarded to the API without delay and without any rival
proponents, when it was not qualified to participate in the first place.
The legality and propriety of the agreement executed with the
contractor is totally absent based on the testimonies of both the
prosecution and the defense.
This Court also considers these particular acts significant. First.
From the testimony of then Vice-Mayor Ruiz, Jesus V. Garcia, the
president of API, attended the SB session after paying a courtesy call to
the Accused who was then the Mayor. Second. It was the Accused who
signed and posted the Invitation to Bid (Exhibit N) giving proponents 30
days to submit their proposals. Third. The Accused is the head of the
Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Committee which according to him
recommended the approval of API's proposal. This was the reason he
used in requesting authority from the SB to grant him the authority to
contract with API. Fourth . The Accused requested the SB to give him
authority to enter into an agreement with API through a resolution
(Exhibit S)[.] Fifth . It was the Accused who invited the SB members to
go to the Mayor's office to witness the signing of the Memorandum of
Agreement between the municipality and API. 36
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 As the local chief executive, petitioner is not only expected to know the
proper procedure in the bidding and award of infrastructure contracts such
as BOT projects, he is also duty bound to follow the same and his failure to
discharge this duty constitutes gross and inexcusable negligence. 37
Petitioner further assails the Sandiganbayan in not considering the
previous dismissal of the criminal complaint filed by Alberto Castañeda
against petitioner also involving the Wag-Wag Shopping Mall project. The
Sandiganbayan pointed out that said case (OMB-1-97-1885) was dismissed
by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon on March 26, 1999 at the
time the construction works were supposedly only temporarily stopped by
API, while in this case it is already apparent that the latter abandoned the
project and reneged on its obligation. DHcEAa

We find nothing illegal in the reversal by the Ombudsman upon review

of the September 9, 2002 resolution of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
for Luzon which recommended the dismissal of the complaint-affidavit filed
by Domiciano R. Laurena IV upon the ground that a similar criminal
complaint filed by Castañeda had been dismissed in OMB-1-97-1885. The
Office of the Ombudsman Chief Legal Counsel granted the petition for review
filed by complainant Laurena IV and recommended that petitioner be
indicted before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No.
3019. It pointed out that the dismissal of OMB-1-97-1885 was premised on
the authority of a local legislature to accept unsolicited proposals and enter
into a BOT project under R.A. No. 6957 as amended by R.A. No. 7718, and
the lack of any showing of undue injury to the Municipality of Muñoz as a
result of the temporary work stoppage. However, the issue of lack of API's
construction license was never brought out in the earlier case while in the
present case, the PCAB attested to the fact that API is not a licensed
contractor and petitioner's approval of API's proposal is a clear badge of
giving unwarranted benefit, preference or advantage through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or at the very least, gross inexcusable
negligence. The OMB found that petitioner could have easily discovered such
fact with basic prudence considering that a P240-million infrastructure was
involved, but apparently he threw all caution to the wind and relied solely on
the self-serving representation of API that it possesses the requisite
contractor's license. 38 This ruling of the OMB Chief Legal Counsel was
affirmed upon review by the Special Prosecutor and approved by
Ombudsman Merceditas N. Gutierrez on August 4, 2006. 39
It may be recalled that on motion of petitioner, the Ombudsman even
conducted a reinvestigation of the case pursuant to the January 15, 2007
directive of the Sandiganbayan. In a memorandum 40 dated March 5, 2007,
then Special Prosecutor Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio approved the finding of
probable cause against the petitioner and the recommendation that the
information already filed in this case, for which petitioner had already been
arraigned, be maintained. Petitioner cannot claim denial of his right to due
process, as he had been given ample opportunity to present evidence on his
defense in the proceedings before the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan.
No grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Ombudsman in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 reversing the previous dismissal of a similar criminal complaint against the
petitioner involving the anomalous award of the BOT contract to API. Indeed,
the Ombudsman is not precluded from ordering another review of a
complaint, for he or she may revoke, repeal or abrogate the acts or previous
rulings of a predecessor in office. Thus we held in Trinidad v. Office of the
Ombudsman: 41
Petitioner's arguments — that res judicata applies since the
Office of the Ombudsman twice found no sufficient basis to indict him
in similar cases earlier filed against him, and that the Agan cases
cannot be a supervening event or evidence per se to warrant a
reinvestigation on the same set of facts and circumstances — do not
lie.

Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and thus has no bearing on

criminal proceedings.

But even if petitioner's argument were to be expanded to

contemplate "res judicata in prison grey" or the criminal law concept of
double jeopardy, this Court still finds it inapplicable to bar the
reinvestigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. For the
dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation does not
constitute double jeopardy, preliminary investigation not being
part of the trial.

Insisting that the case should be barred by the prior Joint

Resolution of the Ombudsman, petitioner posits that repeated
investigations are oppressive since he as respondent and other
respondents would be made to suffer interminable prosecution since
resolutions dismissing complaints would perpetually be subject to
reopening at any time and by any party. Petitioner particularly points
out that no new evidence was presented at the reinvestigation.

Petitioner's position fails to impress. SECcIH

The Ombudsman is not precluded from ordering another

review of a complaint, for he or she may revoke, repeal or
abrogate the acts or previous rulings of a predecessor in office.
And Roxas v. Hon. Vasquez teaches that new matters or evidence
are not prerequisites for a reinvestigation, which is simply a
chance for the prosecutor, or in this case the Office of the
Ombudsman, to review and re-evaluate its findings and the
evidence already submitted. (Emphasis supplied.)

As to the propriety of damages awarded by the Sandiganbayan, we

find that the same is proper and justified. The term "undue injury" in the
context of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act punishing
the act of "causing undue injury to any party," has a meaning akin to that
civil law concept of "actual damage." Actual damage, in the context of these
definitions, is akin to that in civil law. 42
Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that except as provided by law
or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by a party as he has duly proved. Liquidated
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 damages, on the other hand, are those agreed upon by the parties to a
contract, to be paid in case of a breach thereof. 43
For approved BOT contracts, it is mandatory that a performance
security be posted by the contractor/proponent in favor of the LGU in the
form of cash, manager's check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit or
bank draft in the minimum amount of 2% of the total project cost. 44 In case
the default occurred during the project construction stage, the LGU shall
likewise forfeit the performance security of the erring project
proponent/contractor. 45 The IRR thus provides:
SEC. 12.13. Liquidated Damages. — Where the project
proponent of a project fails to satisfactorily complete the work within
the construction period prescribed in the contract, including any
extension or grace period duly granted, and is thereby in default under
the contract, the project proponent shall pay the Agency/LGU
concerned liquidated damages, as may be agreed upon under the
contract by the parties. The parties shall agree on the amount and
schedule of payment of the liquidated damages. The performance
security may be forfeited to answer for any liquidated damages due to
the Agency/LGU. The amount of liquidated damages due for every
calendar day of delay will be determined by the Agency/LGU. In no
case however shall the delay exceed twenty percent (20%) of the
approved construction time stipulated in the contract plus any time
extension duly granted. In such an event the Agency/LGU concerned
shall rescind the contract, forfeit the proponent's performance security
and proceed with the procedures prescribed under Section 12.19. b.

Had the requirement of performance security been complied with,

there is no dispute that the Municipality of Muñoz would have been entitled
to the forfeiture of performance security when API defaulted on its obligation
to execute the construction contract, at the very least in an amount
equivalent to 2% of the total project cost. Hence, said LGU is entitled to such
damages which the law mandates to be incorporated in the BOT contract,
the parties being at liberty only to stipulate the extent and amount thereof.
To rule otherwise would mean a condonation of blatant disregard and
violation of the provisions of the BOT law and its implementing rules and
regulations which are designed to protect the public interest in transactions
between government and private business entities. While petitioner claims to
have entered into a compromise agreement as authorized by the SB and
approved by the trial court, no evidence of such judicial compromise was
submitted before the Sandiganbayan. HaIESC

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November

16, 2009 and Resolution dated June 9, 2010 of the Sandiganbayan in
Criminal Case No. SB-06-CRM-0389 are AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes

1.Rollo , pp. 53-85. Penned by Associate Justice Jose R. Hernandez with Associate
Justices Gregory S. Ong and Roland B. Jurado concurring.

2.Id. at 109-117.
3.Id. at 153-155, 166-195.

4.Id. at 147-152.
5.Records (Vol. 1), pp. 1-2.

6.TSN, April 8, 2008, pp. 5-24.

7.Rollo, p. 146.
8.TSN, April 8, 2008, pp. 24-50.

9.Id. at 53-77.
10.Rollo, p. 84.

11.Id. at 20.

12.Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October 25, 2004, 441 SCRA
377, 386.

13.Santos v. People, G.R. No. 161877, March 23, 2006, 485 SCRA 185, 194-195,
citing Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 100334, December 5, 1991 and
Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993, 228 SCRA
214, 222-223.
14.Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 170339 & 170398-403, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA
670, 681, citing Quibal v. Sandiganbayan (Second Division) , G.R. No. 109991,
May 22, 1995, 244 SCRA 224.

15.G.R. No. 136082, May 12, 2000, 332 SCRA 126, 135.
16.As cited in Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 12.

17.G.R. Nos. 50691, 52263, 52766, 52821, 53350 & 53397, December 5, 1994,
238 SCRA 655.
18.Id. at 688. See also Soriquez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 153526, October 25,
2005, 474 SCRA 222, 230.

19.Sison v. People, supra 14 at 682.

20.Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 18; Sison v. People, id. at 679.

21.Sec. 20, R.A. 4566.

22.Sec. 36, R.A. 4566.

23.Exhibit "H", Prosecution's Exhibits.

24.Rollo , pp. 147-149.

25.Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc., G.R. Nos. 155001,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 155547 & 155661, January 21, 2004, 420 SCRA 575, 588-589.
26.Sec. 1.3 (v), IRR of R.A. No. 6957 as amended by R.A. No. 7718.

27.Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 6957 as amended by R.A. No. 7718 provides:

SEC. 4. Priority Projects. — . . .

The list of local projects to be implemented by the local government units
concerned shall be submitted for confirmation to the municipal development
council for projects costing up to Twenty million pesos; those costing above
Twenty up to Fifty million pesos to the provincial development council; those
costing up to Fifty Million pesos to the city development council; above Fifty
million up to Two hundred million pesos to the regional development
councils; and those above Two hundred million pesos to the ICC of the NEDA.

28.Sec. 2.3, second par., IRR.

29.Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. Peñafiel, G.R. No. 173976,
February 27, 2009, 580 SCRA 352, 360-361, citing Perez v. Perez, G.R. No.
143768, March 28, 2005, 454 SCRA 72, 81.

30.Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation v. Department of Transportation and

Communications, G.R. Nos. 169914 & 174166, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 355,
376.
31.Id. at 373, 375. Resolution denying with finality the motions for reconsideration
of the Decision dated April 18, 2008.

32.See JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124293, September
24, 2003, 412 SCRA 10, 33.
33.Garcia v. Burgos, G.R. No. 124130, June 29, 1998, 291 SCRA 546, 576.

34.Sison v. People, supra note 14 at 681-682.

35.Id. at 680.

36.Rollo , pp. 81-82.

37.See Ong v. People , G.R. No. 176546, September 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 47, 56.
38.Records (Vol. 1), pp. 4-7.

39.Id. at 8-15.
40.Id. at 339-347.

41.G.R. No. 166038, December 4, 2007, 539 SCRA 415, 423-425.

42.Santos v. People, supra note 13 at 197, citing Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,

350 Phil. 820, 838 (1998).
43.Art. 2226, Civil Code.
44.Sec. 12.7 (a), IRR.

45.Sec. 12.19 (b), IRR.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com