February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 172886 : February 08, 2010] GUILLERMO LUZ, AUGUSTO C. LAGRNAN, AND TELIBERT LAOC V. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MOLEO ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR JOAQUIN F. SALAZAR, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, AND LUZVIMINDA G. TANCANGCO:
[G.R. No. 172886 : February 08, 2010]
GUILLERMO LUZ, AUGUSTO C. LAGRNAN, AND TELIBERT LAOC V. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MOLEO ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR JOAQUIN F. SALAZAR, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, AND LUZVIMINDA G. TANCANGCO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 08 February 2010:
G.R. No. 172886 (Guillermo Luz, Augusto C. Lagrnan, and Telibert Laoc v. Deputy Ombudsman for MOLEO Orlando C. Casimiro, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Victor C. Fernandez, Director Joaquin F. Salazar, in their Official Capacities, and Luzviminda G. Tancangco).-
This case challenges the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) that probable cause does not exist in the graft cases that certain private citizens filed against a member of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
The Facts of the Case
In 1998 the COMELEC designated one of its Commissioners, respondent Luzviminda Tancangco, to head the modernization of its National Precinct Mapping (NPM) and Computerized Voters' List (CVL) verification projects. It also gave her solo authority to sign all expenditures for them. The COMELEC started with two major projects: the Voters Registration and Identification System (VRJS) and the Automated Counting and Consolidation of Results System. But these did not go well.
On January 27, 2004 petitioners Guillermo Luz, Augusto Lagman, and Telibert Laoc filed a consolidated complaint against Tancangco for giving unwarranted preference to Photokina Marketing Corp. (Photokina) in relation to the VRIS project in violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act (R.A.) 3019; for failure to automate the voting and canvassing of votes for the 2001 elections also in violation of the same Section 3(e); for entering on the government's behalf into a manifestly and grossly disadvantageous contract with Photokina relative to the VRIS project in violation of Section 3(g) of the same Act; and for diverting funds already earmarked for the NPM and CVL verification projects in violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.
On February 28, 2005, after preliminary investigation, the OMB found probable cause to indict private respondent Tancangco for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for giving unwarranted preference to Photokina in relation to the VRIS project. The OMB filed the corresponding information with the Sandiganbayan on June 17, 2005.
But the OMB dismissed the three other charges against Tancangco for the other violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019 and of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioners filed a motion for partial reconsideration with respect to the dismissed charges but this was denied, prompting petitioners Luz and the others with him to file the present petition for certiorari.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not probable cause exists in each of the three charges filed against respondent Tancangco that the OMB caused to be dismissed.
The Rulings of the Court
1. To constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action has caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or has given any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.[1]
Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage to another.[2] Manifest partiality, on the other hand, has been characterized as a clear, notorious, or plain bias to favor one side rather than the other.[3] Gross inexcusable negligence is defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act, not inadvertently but intentionally with a conscious insensitivity to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[4]
An automated election system has three phases: (a) registration and verification of voters, (b) automated counting and consolidation of votes, and (c) electronic transmission of election results. Petitioners blame Tancangco, as head of the COMELEC's Modernization Committee, for giving priority to the VRIS project rather than to the automated counting system.
But prioritizing the execution of equally approved projects cannot be regarded as manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. As the OMB said, it did not seem patently unreasonable for Tancangco to put priority to the VRIS project over the automated counting and canvassing of votes. The electronic counting machines would be counting the votes of flying voters unless the registries of voters were first cleansed.[5]
Besides, respondent Tancangco's committee was faced with long delays in completing the automated counting and canvassing sub-system due to various legal, technical, and operational problems. Consequently, she may have been prompted by good faith in choosing to handle the VRIS project first, instead of rushing the delivery of an automated counting system at the risk of making dangerous mistakes. The Court finds no valid reason to reverse the OMB's ruling in this case.
2. The elements of a violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 are:(a) the accused acted as a public officer; and (b) the subject contract or transaction he entered into is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.[6] "Manifest" means evident to the senses, obvious, or notorious, while "gross" is defined as glaring, reprehensible, or shocking.[7] Here, the second element is not present.
Although there had been an award, respondent Tancangco did not in fact get to enter into a contract on COMELEC's behalf with Photokina because of problems encountered in meeting certain legal requirements and in a failure of the parties to arrive at the most favorable terms.
3. Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in technical malversation, the offender diverted public funds to any public use other than that provided for by law or ordinance.[8] No such diversion took place in this case.
Petitioners Luz, et al. themselves admit that R.A. 8522 or the General Appropriations Act of 1998 appropriated P800 million for the COMELEC's Modernization Program, without assigning specific amounts to the projects involved in the program. And, although the middle portion of Special Allotment Release Order C-00-00103[9] indicated Equipment Outlay, its lower portion stated that the release was pursuant to the President's approval dated October 31, 1999. Notably, the letter-request that merited the presidential approval asked for funding of the NPM and CVL projects.
What is more, assuming that there was indeed a diversion of funds to NPM and CVL projects, the records show that the COMELEC en banc approved the realignment. Petitioners of course claim that respondent Tancangco manipulated such approval but that would be underestimating the intellectual capacity of the en banc members.
The Court finds no occasion for grave abuse of discretion on the part of the OMB in issuing its rulings.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition and AFFIRMS the Resolution of the Ombudsman dated February 28, 2005 and its Order dated August 17,2005.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 8th day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 172886 (Guillermo Luz, Augusto C. Lagrnan, and Telibert Laoc v. Deputy Ombudsman for MOLEO Orlando C. Casimiro, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Victor C. Fernandez, Director Joaquin F. Salazar, in their Official Capacities, and Luzviminda G. Tancangco).-
This case challenges the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) that probable cause does not exist in the graft cases that certain private citizens filed against a member of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
The Facts of the Case
In 1998 the COMELEC designated one of its Commissioners, respondent Luzviminda Tancangco, to head the modernization of its National Precinct Mapping (NPM) and Computerized Voters' List (CVL) verification projects. It also gave her solo authority to sign all expenditures for them. The COMELEC started with two major projects: the Voters Registration and Identification System (VRJS) and the Automated Counting and Consolidation of Results System. But these did not go well.
On January 27, 2004 petitioners Guillermo Luz, Augusto Lagman, and Telibert Laoc filed a consolidated complaint against Tancangco for giving unwarranted preference to Photokina Marketing Corp. (Photokina) in relation to the VRIS project in violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act (R.A.) 3019; for failure to automate the voting and canvassing of votes for the 2001 elections also in violation of the same Section 3(e); for entering on the government's behalf into a manifestly and grossly disadvantageous contract with Photokina relative to the VRIS project in violation of Section 3(g) of the same Act; and for diverting funds already earmarked for the NPM and CVL verification projects in violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.
On February 28, 2005, after preliminary investigation, the OMB found probable cause to indict private respondent Tancangco for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for giving unwarranted preference to Photokina in relation to the VRIS project. The OMB filed the corresponding information with the Sandiganbayan on June 17, 2005.
But the OMB dismissed the three other charges against Tancangco for the other violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019 and of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioners filed a motion for partial reconsideration with respect to the dismissed charges but this was denied, prompting petitioners Luz and the others with him to file the present petition for certiorari.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not probable cause exists in each of the three charges filed against respondent Tancangco that the OMB caused to be dismissed.
The Rulings of the Court
1. To constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action has caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or has given any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.[1]
Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage to another.[2] Manifest partiality, on the other hand, has been characterized as a clear, notorious, or plain bias to favor one side rather than the other.[3] Gross inexcusable negligence is defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act, not inadvertently but intentionally with a conscious insensitivity to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[4]
An automated election system has three phases: (a) registration and verification of voters, (b) automated counting and consolidation of votes, and (c) electronic transmission of election results. Petitioners blame Tancangco, as head of the COMELEC's Modernization Committee, for giving priority to the VRIS project rather than to the automated counting system.
But prioritizing the execution of equally approved projects cannot be regarded as manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. As the OMB said, it did not seem patently unreasonable for Tancangco to put priority to the VRIS project over the automated counting and canvassing of votes. The electronic counting machines would be counting the votes of flying voters unless the registries of voters were first cleansed.[5]
Besides, respondent Tancangco's committee was faced with long delays in completing the automated counting and canvassing sub-system due to various legal, technical, and operational problems. Consequently, she may have been prompted by good faith in choosing to handle the VRIS project first, instead of rushing the delivery of an automated counting system at the risk of making dangerous mistakes. The Court finds no valid reason to reverse the OMB's ruling in this case.
2. The elements of a violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 are:(a) the accused acted as a public officer; and (b) the subject contract or transaction he entered into is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.[6] "Manifest" means evident to the senses, obvious, or notorious, while "gross" is defined as glaring, reprehensible, or shocking.[7] Here, the second element is not present.
Although there had been an award, respondent Tancangco did not in fact get to enter into a contract on COMELEC's behalf with Photokina because of problems encountered in meeting certain legal requirements and in a failure of the parties to arrive at the most favorable terms.
3. Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in technical malversation, the offender diverted public funds to any public use other than that provided for by law or ordinance.[8] No such diversion took place in this case.
Petitioners Luz, et al. themselves admit that R.A. 8522 or the General Appropriations Act of 1998 appropriated P800 million for the COMELEC's Modernization Program, without assigning specific amounts to the projects involved in the program. And, although the middle portion of Special Allotment Release Order C-00-00103[9] indicated Equipment Outlay, its lower portion stated that the release was pursuant to the President's approval dated October 31, 1999. Notably, the letter-request that merited the presidential approval asked for funding of the NPM and CVL projects.
What is more, assuming that there was indeed a diversion of funds to NPM and CVL projects, the records show that the COMELEC en banc approved the realignment. Petitioners of course claim that respondent Tancangco manipulated such approval but that would be underestimating the intellectual capacity of the en banc members.
The Court finds no occasion for grave abuse of discretion on the part of the OMB in issuing its rulings.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition and AFFIRMS the Resolution of the Ombudsman dated February 28, 2005 and its Order dated August 17,2005.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 8th day of February, 2010.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd)MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd)MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 50691, December 5, 1994, 238 SCRA 655, 687.
[2] Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 350 Phil. 820, 843 (1998), citing Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.69983, May 14, 1990, 185 SCRA 346, 349.
[3] Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 2.
[4] Fernando v. Sandiganbayan., G.R. Nos. 96182-83, August 19, 1992, 212 SCRA 680, 691.
[5] Rollo, p. 341.
[6] Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, 357 Phil. 762, 785 (1998).
[7] Sajul v. Sandiganbayan, 398 Phil. 1082, 1105 (2000), citing West's Legal Thesaurus Dictionary, Special De Luxe Edition, West Publishing Company, 1986.
[8] Palma Gil v. People, G.R. Nos. 73613-16 & 73642, September 1, 1989, 177 SCRA 229, 245.
[9] Rollo,p. 285.