BASALO Case Digest i "aia anise uefa Nos, 192020 2.24 et Po ARGUE fetitiomer v8.u0 THE. SANDIGANBATAN: TOURTE DIVISION and AEDPLE_ The _PHLIPPINES ,_ Respondents FACTS I Narquez and Cayan_cloag with Souc_(4)_oher local quennnent *_afficals-of » forajioque. City ord povaie ‘tdvidual. sPrtonio Rozo Mere changed aya in Sh ei tS jo “dis Hwy” d che. ‘5 or ts ue atta aS wih he on_fo and Whi ond c wert_dear ly _overgiond 5 the _octual cost _per_piece of the _wdlis fng-ting was ‘oly thas fond Sy _Conwiggion_on_ Ard (Cox) _Speial_ Aud! eam. I Consequently , the COR sued Noles of Disellowanes Nas. 01-00) -Io1 (24) Jy 01-006 -fo) )_, OL oj-fo) CH) 4y_O1= ON" Joy C97) , and ol-to1 -fo| (98) 4 i ov 101 6) covtring the oueprited omaunt of F\ 02 918-m for the purchase of 140 lt yieces walls $nq-hing vith or without handle Wy ferdague City ‘nthe years "86 an Issue: \WHEIKER OR Wot _PETETIONERS ARE GUILTY OF VIGATION OF SECTION 31a) of RA: No. 3019. ‘i RAL ie 4 No. of i “we ak gn at ea Sadk_of_overprcing,_'s enindded nth Se eae Ag) a QA No. 319. Given she Factual milieu of this case aa saloyect tras would io ayceshy a) _maritestly digadvorttignons_4 ty she i “py on_onpivad qoanenert. tower, Aheios, cord anit doy —*ne_qovernmmert was _not_svBcertly chown vecause he Cancion OvenReiNg wos _enonesds sme “h was yet’ adequately . Tne lock oF public idding alone does rot automaticaly equate 4y_o ‘and, dicadvantca opveranetl AS declared in Nova vs, —Sontigarboyon_, he obence_of_ pubic Videing wey edn “hat ne goverment was _inot dd 4y_stune he lowest argon ‘nts Sawn, ond thay ope che _door to gre} ond _comuphin, Aur all, gna laws ove, Smidly emnstiutd against whe _ government