You are on page 1of 5

TRIESTE SR. v.

SANDIGANBAYAN (1986) actually emergency direct purchases by
personal canvass
ACCUSED Generoso Trieste, Municipal Mayor
of NUMANCIA, AKLAN  SOLGEN argued that court is not a trier of
facts  argued dismissal
12 informations filed by TANODBAYAN
against petitioner for violation of SEC 3 (b)  EARLIER, SOLGEN ARGUED that
of RA 3019 petitioner’s evidence of divestment of interest
in TRIGEN (which was effected before his
Allegedly, TRIESTE as Municipal Mayor and
Mayorship) should have been presented at
member of the Committee on Award of the
the earliest opportunity  Transfer of interest
Municipality of Numancia Aklan, had admin
should have been recorded in SEC
control of the funds and whose approve is
required in their disbursements... had  BUT SOLGEN ITSELF Manifested for
financial or pecuniary interest in a Acquittal, BECAUSE:
business/contract/transaction in connection
- 1) PROSECUTION moved for failed to
with which accused intervened or took part in
prove charges  evidence discloses
his official capacity, which is prohibited by law
absence of bidding and award
 particularly purchases of construction - 2) No evidence that TRIESTE approved
materials by Municipality of Numancia Aklan payment
from TRIGEN AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEV’T CORP - 3) Testimonial and documentary
 of which accused TRIESTE is president, evidence confirms that TRIESTE only
incorporator, director and major signed vouchers after payment
stockholder - 4) TRIGEN did not gain any undue
advantage in the transaction
 for the various amounts (TOTAL:
7,730PHP), he awarded the supply and
delivery of said materials to TRIGEN &
SC RULING: ayan tama naman si SOLGEN
approved payment to said corp in violation of
ok ACQUITTED
RA 3019 (as evidenced by 12 different cash
vouchers)

 SB DECISION: CONVICTED
PETITIONER OF ALL 12 INFOS

 sentenced in each case to indeterminate
penalty of (3Y + 1D  6Y + 1D) + PERPETUAL
DISQUALIFICATION from public office

Petition for review in SC

 FILED in SC petition to lift order of SB which
suspended him from Office as his term was
about to expire  NO OBJECTION 
preventive suspension LIFTED  reinstated as
Mayor

FILED Supplemental pleading  alleging that
he did not intervene in the purchases as he
only signed the voucher when said purchases
were ALREADY MADE  that there was no
bidding as erroneously adverted to by the
informations, because the transactions were

2006: ALVAREZ was charged with violation of SEC 3(e) of the RA 3019 FACTS (as taken from BERSAMIN’S dissent) STATE argued & adduced evidence that: * BOT LAW/RA 7718 (Build-Operate-Transfer) . Post office. Bids and on the construction of the Wag Wag Awards Committee (PBAC… headed by Shopping Mall under the BOT scheme ALVAREZ din) recommended the approval of  because PBAC. they issued notice of award  that they complained about the slow pace of the TL. that the project where API was the sole bidder and thus was an unsolicited proposal under the awarded the project (240m PHP total project BOT law  that API paid a disturbance cost)  began the project (the designated lot fee of 500k  that Sanggu authorized was previously used for a 1story building with him to file cases against API in order to terminate the agreement  that they . bidding SPEND A CENTAVO.ALVAREZ v. Office of the Assessor. was 2.DR? no problem. PEOPLE (2012) several departments  see long version ^) but it went unfinished  allegedly. President of Australian (from the PH Construction Professional INC to participate in the planned Accreditation Board) construction of 4-story WAG WAG SHOPPING . Alvarez was authorized by because the president of API was in the Sangguniang Bayan of Munoz to enter into Europe a contract with Australian Professional Inc for  emphasized that the Municipality did the construction of the 4-story WAG WAG not suffer damage because it did NOT SHOPPING MALL  Published notice. recommended acceptance of INTERESTED BIDDER. NUEVA ECIJA)  SEC 3(e) of RA 3019 AUG 10. municipality borrowed money from BIR. informing the public about the project Bulletin and Business Bulletin  that and its contractor placed on site. which went unheeded So in 1995 – 1998. Petitioner knew API had no capacity  JUL 7 1995: SANGGU BAYAN of MUNOZ API did not have a Contractor’s License invited JESS GARCIA. API’s application for registration was MALL. that ALVAREZ requested the Sanggu to grant him authority to contract with API APR 12 1996: The Pre-qualification. said offers. approved on JUL 28 1995  its capital FEB 1996: Tabloid PINOY published the stock was 40m and its paid up capital invitation for proposals for the mall project. Vice Mayor of MUNOZ from 92-98. Read this: project by letter. AND POST NOTICES (when Alvarez SEP 12 1996: ALVAREZ & API entered into required them to) BECAUSE THE BOT LAW the said contract DID NOT REQUIRE THEM ANYWAY. FEB 14 1997: Groundbreaking ceremony  among others he also said that the was held on site (where Dept of Agriculture. the proposal of API APR 15 1996: SANGGU BAYAN passed a ALVAREZ’ DEFENSE WAS THAT API DID resolution authorizing ALVAREZ to enter into NOT SUBMIT NECESSARY DOCUMENTS a MOA with API regarding the project. Mayor of the incompetent/grossly inadequate for the Municipality of MUNOZ (Now Science City of project and alvarez KNEW MUNOZ. headed ALSO by the proposal submitted by API  THE ONLY ALVAREZ. and a BILLBOARD was BOT projects of API in the Manila put up. GSIS  that VMayor Ruiz showed him COMELEC and DSWD used to be). API was ACCUSED Efren Alvarez. API later (Alvarez) the publications of the OTHER started the excavation.5m (from the SEC) giving interested bidders 30 DAYS to submit .

inclusion of other members of Sanggu  Also that an annual net income of 4m denied him equal protection clause of had been forecast out of the 40m loan the law from GSIS. DUTIES under the LGC WALANG SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE KUNG  GOVERNMENT SUFFERED DAMAGES  YUNG MINIMUM DI MO NAGAWA. that ALVAREZ conducted a SC RULING: CONVICTED KA PARIN BUI study relative to the capability of APi. he is mandated to follow and proposal uphold. hindi parin naman 7718 (BOT LAW) talaga punishable ginawa niya I mean tanga 2. that API and PARI were one and the CLEARLY there was manifest partiality and same. Bad faith. where dispute that he was in good faith trying the compromise settlement had been to comply with RA 7718  non filed. Petitioner asserts costs in 4. SC AFFIRMED of Munoz had the expertise and capability to CONVICTION OF PETITIONER  this is the do the project because it was the same entity MR now. although admittedly he did NOT gross inexcusable negligence even if without inquire from the SEC about the status bad faith. of the 2 companies  he did NOT determine whether API was a licensed Submission of documents (such as contractor contractor’s license) are MINIMUM LEGAL REQUIREMENTS for govt to evaluate SB RULING: CONVICTED ALVAREZ qualifications of a BOT proponent  unthinkable for him to have allowed it by  Project was not confirmed/approved by relying merely on a piece of info from news the investment council of NEDA item about API’s other projects  A shorter period was given for comparative/competitive proposals ALVAREZ’s admission as to the  Failure to meet conditions for approval noncompliance with the posting of notices and of the contract. which. Sto Domingo Nueva Ecija. DID mutually terminate the agreement  burden of proving otherwise rests on  that there was no copy of the the respondent  presumption of compromise agreement because fire regularity. including the posting of submission of requirements after the a performance security awarding of the contract to API. BATANGAS & 300m in SO ANUNA PINAGLALABAN NI KOYA? ETO: CALAMBA LAGUNA)  SC says substantial basis is that mandated by the law  the 1.8m PHP that there was reason for the Municipal Govt ALVAREZ APPEALED IN SC.  basta yon public buildings were lost + demolition Edi ”substantial basis” daw. SB was mistaken in concluding ALL acts lang siguro siya no?  but well sed lex dura of petitioner were illegal and irregular lex . involved in 2 previous major BOT projects (150m in LEMERY. Haha. only shows  No in-depth negotiations with his indifference and disregard of the BOT law proponent and implementing rules. respondent  BECAUSE THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH RA ** some thots  well. because he WAS authorized had razed the premises of the RTC in by the Sangguniang Bayan  no Balok.  it is unacceptable for him to rely on  NO CLEAR PLAN presented the representations and statements of APi  API not a licensed contractor  Petitioner was totally REMISS IN HIS ANONG SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. as chief  API did NOT submit a complete executive. and gross REQUIRING OF THE SUBMISSION OF negligence were NOT proven by SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS. manifest partiality.

escalation clause in GLOBE contract TO THE EXCLUSION of other 2. rly LIM as there was a previous applicant and he IS the son in law of then Mayor GO Ayun. it must be deliberate intent to do so 2 infos against petitioners. which the court cannot SEC 3(e) & (g) assume solely from his act of approving the contract in favor of LIM  only showed lease Petitioners posted bail and filed motion for contracts as proof  failed to establish that reinvestigation of the crim cases  SB the accused were actuated by a dishonest ordered reinvestigation  OSP conducted purpose or ill will partaking of a fraud or reinvestigation and recommended design or ulterior purpose (SO KAILANGAN dismissal of the cases  haha. Thus  while globe pays 5kPHP/month for DEMURRER GRANTED BY SB 100sqm 3. LIM pays 112PHP/month for 56sqm telecommunication networks. DUHAYLUNGSOD. Pending this petition SB promulgated a resolution granting the demurrer of evidence filed by petitioners. Ronald Go (FORMER Municipal given to NOEL LIM resulted in undue injury to Mayor of Kapatagan. grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to contracted a lease with his son in law. as former Municipal Mayor. Petitioners filed Motion 2 QUASH arguing that there was no probable cause or prima facie case  DENIED BY SB  NO MR.GO v. which was grossly and manifestly talaga disadvantageous to Municipality of Kapatagan  GO should not be blamed for the higher  as opposed to the lease contract with rental rate of GLOBE considering that it was GLOBE TELECOM. SANDIGANBAYAN (2007)  INFO failed to allege an essential element  that the unwarranted benefits allegedly ACCUSED. because the one that offered the higher rate for a 1. just this petition. OMB (office MAY MOTIBO) of the legal counsel) recommended disapproval of OSP’s recommendation  No dispute that in the info what was alleged was that 1) GO is a pub officer 2) GO made a TEKA ANO BA GINAWA NI GO? transaction on behalf of the govt 3) such was Turns out  GO. . No escalation clause in LIM contract  chosen and specified lot for its particular use. 3rd lang LIM. ** apparently a Sanggu Bayan member (DELORIA) objected to awarding the lease to This fucker. the lease can hardly be CRUZ (former Sangguniang Bayan members) said to be irregularly executed  MAMACHAN & ANECITA GO (incumbent Sanggu members)  failed to prove manifest partiality. evident bad faith. Without undue injury or OTHERS: LABITAD. LIM’s contract is for 10 years while GLOBE’s is for 5 yrs SC JUST SAID… eh pota moot & academic na pala e. dismissed. DELA damage to any party. for violations of imputed to GO. NOEL the govt  1 & 2 elements proven. LANAO DEL NORTE)  the government. and gross inexcusable negligence  Violations of SEC 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019 bad faith is not presumed eh  as to OCT 9 2000  OMB filed with Sandiganbayan partiality.