REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~anbiganbapan
Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SB-16-A/R-OOOl

Pia in tiff Appellee, (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)

For: Violation of Section 3(e),

R.A. No. 3019
- versus -

JEROME B. RE~DON, Present:

Accused-Appellant.
Quiroz, J., Chairperson
Cruz, J.
Jacinto, J.

Promulgated on:

0('/0 bc.i q I 1.6/ T

x---------------------·-----~------------------------------------------------~----------x

DECISION
•
JACINTO, J:

This is an appeal from the Decision! of the Regional Trial Court

(Branch 26) of Surallah, South Cotabato in Crim. Case No. 4560-8 entitled
"People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Jerome B. Rendon and Allan D.
Yaphockun, Accused," finding appellant JEROME BANGONON REND ON
guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwise
known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," as amended.

On 6 September 2006, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) charged

accused-appellant Rendon, together with other individuals, for three (3)
counts of violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, which were docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. 4460-B, 4561-8, and 4562-8. The accusatory portion of
the Information reads:

That sometime in March 2001, or shortly prior or subsequent thereto, in

Barangay Benitez, Banga, South Cotabato and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable court, the above-named accused, Jerorne B. Rendon, a public officer,
being then the municipal engineer of Banga, South Cotabato, committing the

I Dated 26 August 20 15; Rollo, pp. 45-66. t'

r
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-AlR-OOOI (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 2 of 15

offense in relation to his official duty and taking advantage of his official
position, conspiring and confederating together with accused Allan D. Yaphokun,
contractor and owner of Yap Mabuhay Enterprises, Inc., through evident bad
faith, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause the violation
of the provisions of the Contract of Agreement for Water Development at the
Municipal Development Project at Barangay Benitez entered on March 19, 2001
by and between Yap Mabuhay Enterprises and the Municipality of Banga, by
undertaking an unapproved variation order which downgraded the project's
standard resulting to the use of substandard materials and submitting an
inspection report which is over the actual accomplishment causing the
unwarranted stoppage of the project thereby causing undue injury to the
municipal government of Banga, South Cotabato in the amount of more or less
P651,373.40.

CONTRARY LA W.2

The People's case is built on the testimonies of four (4) witnesses: (1)
Vicenta A. Cagang;' State Auditor III at the Provincial Auditor's Office in
Koronadal City; (2) Engr. Claro Fernando," Registered Agricultural
Engineer; (3) Isidro .Ianita," Municipal Mayor of Banga, South Cotabato;
and, (4) Engr. Eduardo Leafio," Regional Manager of the National Housing
Authority (NHA) Region XIII, whose testimonies were summarized by the
trial court accordingly:

The filing of the cases against the accused stemmed or originated from
the letter of Mayor lsidro J. Janita, the Mayor of Banga, South Cotabato, dated,
October 23, 200 I which was referred to the Provincial Auditor of the province of
South Cotabato by the Director Ill, Assistant Director, Commission on Audit,
Davao City under CPL-MlN-O 1-273. The Provincial Auditor upon receipt of said
referral, Nenita F. Servafiez, State Auditor IV and the Provincial Auditor issued a
PAO Special A udit Office Order No. 2002-00 I dated, June 3, 2002 directing Ms.
Vicenta G. Cagang, State Auditor III to conduct the necessary audit/investigation
on the alleged unfinished projects mentioned in the letter of Mayor Janita.

Ms. Viceuta G. Cagang conducted the audit and investigation as she was
directed and submitted the result of it to the Regional Legal and Adjudication
Cluster Director, Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. XII, Davao City on
December 12, 2002. Her findings and recommendation regarding the
construction of the Water Development at the Municipal Resettlement Project at
Benitez, Banga, South Cotabato, the subject of Criminal Case No. 4650-B are as
follows:

"For violating the provtsion in the Memorandum of

Agreement by undertaking an unapproved variation order which
downgraded the standard of project and rendering an inspection
report on percentage ofaccomplishment which is over the actual
accomplishment due 10 uninstalled items of work and use of

r
cheaper materials than specified, the municipal engineer,

2 Rol/o, pp. 13-15.

3 TSN, ]0 June 2009, 34 June 2009, and 8 July 2009.
4 TSN, 19 August 2009.
5 TSN, 6 October 2009.
6 TSN, 27 October 2009.
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB:.16-A/R-OOOI (Crirn. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 3 of 15

Jerome B. Rendon is liable under Section 3(e) of Republic Act

No. 3019 known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
which states that:

"Causing undue injury to any party, including

the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his official administrative or
judicial junctions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. This provision apply to officers and
employees of offices or government corporations
charged with the grant of licenses or permits or
other concessions. "

The Contractor, on the other hand, is liable to the

municipal governmentfor breach of contract is [sic] stopping the
construction without duly informing the latter and shall
indemnify the same to the extent of damage caused and undue
disadvantage to the government. The Contractor '05 failure to
construct and complete the works in conformity in all respects
with the provisions of the contract shall warrant cancellations of
his contractor's license.

xxx xxx xxx

Engr. Claro A. Fernando, State Auditor 11and Engr. Rolando P. Manila,

Senior Technical Audit Specialist were likewise requested to help in the audit
and assessment of the construction of the Water Development at the Municipal
Resettlement Project and thereafter, they also submitted their findings and
observations (exhibit "N-4" to "N-S), as follows:

"1. Ins/alia/ion of1162 UP VC Main Pipes and Fillings

Inspection disclosed that UP VC for waterlines were Laid on the

surface of the ground, directly exposed to sunlight and not
conforming to the minimum depth of 750ml11.This will make the
pipes brittle and easily damaged due to load impact as evidenced
by the cracks in some parts ofthe laid pipe system. More so, laid
pipes ore exposed to pilferage as evidenced by some missing
pipelines which could have been avoided had the pipes laid on
the specified depth. Payments shall only be made to the items
conforming with the approved plans and specifications and
found to be acceptable by the government.

2. Installation of Gate Valve

No valve was found installed at the designated locations within

the laid UP VC pipe system.

3. Construction of Elevated Steel Tank and Accessories

--
Original Plan Implemented
_Wideflange W8x28 column 6" dia B.I. Pipe

t FOllr (4) pes 25mm dia

'?.~1chorbolt per column
Six (6) pes 16mm dia anchor
bolt per column
DECISION
People oJ the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-AlR-000l (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 4 of 15

4. Installation of Submersible Electric Pump

The agency reported 50% of the cost of this item with an

equivalent amount of P 156,000.00, however, no sign/evidence of
pump nor its accessories were installed at the time of inspection.

5. Deepwell Drilling & Development

This item has been reported 100% completed at 200 feet,

however, inspection disclosed that the depth of the well is only
140 feet. The equivalent amount of inplaced accomplishment is
P80,500.00.

COMPUTATIONS:

Foundation
Material Cost: 3. P23,254.60
l.abor Cost: 8,500.00
4. P31,654.60
27% OCM 8,546.74
VAT 850.00
5. P41,051.34

P 115,OOO.00/200=575/FTx 80 FT = 80,500.00

It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution that what has been
allegedly awarded to Yap Mabuhay Enterprises, lnc, was the construction of the
Water Development at the Municipal Resettlement Project at barangay Benitez,
Banga, South Cotabato worth P926,720 and as shown by the Contract of
Agreement (exhibit "A"), the works that are to be done are those mentioned in
the work description, as follows:

t. Inst. Of 1162 UP VC Main Pipes and fittings

a. 25mm x 84 in.m. UP VC Pipes
h. 50mm x 1078 in.m. UP VC Pipes
II. Inst. Of Gate Valves
a. One(l) set 75111m
h. Six (6) sets 50mm
1/[ Const. ofElevated Steel tanks and accessories
IV Inst. Of Sub mer si hie Elect. Pump
V Deepwell Drilling and Dev ...

The Contract and Agreement does not provide the period on how long
will the construction take place up to its completion. Mrs. Cagang however in her
audit and investigation report said that when she conducted said audit and
investigation in the months of from June 4, 2002 the construction of said project
had stopped.

xxx xxx xx

The construction of the Water Development Project above-mentioned,

the funding of which came from the National Housing Authority. Said fundings
was the subject of the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the National
Housing Authority and the Second Congressional District of South Cotabato,
represented by then Congresswoman Daisy Avance-Fuentes. The fundings was

rr
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-J6-AlR-OOOl (Crirn. Case No. 4S60-B)
Page 5 of 15

endorsed to the municipal government of Banga as the project implementor for

the construction of Water System and Drainage System. The summary of the
schedule of rates/agency estimates prepared by the NHA which was likewise
found by Ms. Cagang in her audit/investigation are as follows:

"Item No. Description Amount

1. Mobilization/Demobilization Mun. Gov 't Counterpart
2. Drainage System P 837,535.73
3. W;lfer System 962,464.27
P 1,800,000.00"

As shown by the above assignment of the funds, P962,464.27 was for the
construction 0 f the Water system, P83 7.535.73 for the construction of the
drainage system (not subject of the cases) or for a total of PI,800,0.00. After the
projects were bidded, the construction of the water system was awarded to Yap
Mabuhay Enterprises, Inc. for a winning bid of P926,nO.00 and the construction
of the drainage system to Glynn Construction and Supply also for a winning bid
7
of P81 0,633.00.

xxx xxx xxx

When Ms. Cagang conduct her auditlinvestigation, she found the

construction of the Water System not completed. The construction of the bunk
house was made using substandard and recycled materials and the construction of
the canopy had stopped. She further found that the amount of P 139,008.00 which
was equivalent to fifteen (15%) percent of the amount of the construction of the
Water System was paid the contractor as mobilization fee. Also, she found
accused, Jerorne Rendon had recommended a progress payment for an alleged
52.88% work accomplishment on April 4, 200 \ for which the amount of
P286,000.00 was paid the contractor and on June 6, 200 I, the alleged 82.86%
work accomplishment and as a result thereof the amount of P226,305.00 was
paid the contractor making the grand total of the amount paid to the contractor in
the amount of P651,3 73 .00. Said recommendations of the accused for which
corresponding amounts were paid the contractor were not allegedly based upon
the actual progress of the construction of the project as shown by pictures marked
as exhibit "P," "P-\" and "P-2". Accused, Jerorne Rendon likewise altered and
revised the specifications of the plan for the construction of the project as found
by Technical Auditors, Engr. Claro A. Fernando, State Auditor Il and Engr.
Rolando P. Manila, Senior Technical Audit Specialist (exhibit "N-4" and "N-5"
mentioned above) 8 .

On 4 November 2009, plaintiff rested its case with the filing of its
formal offer of evidence." In an Order dated 14 April 2010,10 the Court
admitted all its documentary exhibits, save for Exh. "P ," for lack of proper
identification during trial.
Specific to Crim. Case No. 4560-B, appellant testified in his
defense.11 The essence of his testimony, as found by the trial court, may be
summarized as follows:

7 Joint Decision, p. 17; Rol!o, p. 60.

8 Id., p. 18; Rollo, p. 61.
9 Records, Vol. 1, SB-16-A'R-000 I, pp. 144-155.

\0 Id., p. 178.
11 TSN, 19 February 20 I0, 5 March 20 I0, and 17 January 2011.
t
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-A/R-000I (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 6 of 15

Accused, Jerome Rendon admitted the fact that he revised and altered the
plan for the construction of the Water System. He altered it for allegedly the
materials that are to be used in the construction are not available locally or even
in General Santos City. His revision of the plan was not however approved by
NHA and did not ask its approval. He likewise admitted to have recommended
on April 4, 200 I a 52.88% work completion for which the total amount
P651,373.40 including mobilization fee were paid the contractor.

Said accused however denied to have participated in the award of the

project to the contractor including the constructions of the bunk house and the
canopy He also did not have any hand in the payment of the amount for the
construction of the bunk house. Neither did he order the stoppage of the
construction of the Water System nor the canopy. The construction works
according to him probably stopped after he was relieved on July I, 2001 by
Mayor Isidro J . .Janita through a memorandum (exhibit "6") received by him on
salid d ay."
)7

On 16 February 2011, appellant rested his case with the filing of his
formal offer of evidence.13 All his documentary exhibits were admitted, save
for Exh. "11," which according to the court a quo "does not exist in the list
of exhibits offered.,,14

Upon the evidence submitted by the parties, the court a quo rendered
the assailed Joint Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises all considered, the court finds the evidence of

the prosecution in Criminal Cases Nos. 4561 and 4562-B to be insufficient to
hold the accused criminally responsible as they are charged.

Accordingly, accused, Jerome Rendon and Glenda Declasin are hereby

"ACQUITTED" and the bail bonds posted earlier for their provisional liberty
are hereby ordered cancelled and returned to their bondsmen.

In Criminal Case No. 4560-B, the court finds the evidence (sic) of the
prosecution as against accused, Allan Yaphockun Iikewise insufficient and
wanting to criminally declare him responsible as he is charged. Said accused is
also hereby "ACQUITTED" and the bail bond posted for his provisional liberty
is likewise cancelled and returned to his bondsman.

The court however, finds the evidence of the prosecution against

accused, Jerome Rendon sufficient to hold him criminally responsible as he is
charged.

Consequently, accused
Jerome Rendon Y Bangonon is found
"GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3( e) of R.A. 3019 and
is hereby sentenced to undergo the penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS
and ONE (I) rvl0NTH, the minimum penalty provided by law which the court

12
IJ
Joint Decision, p. 19; Rollo, p. 62.
Records, Vol.l, SB-16-A/R-OOOl, pp. 215-219.
14 Order dated 16 March 201 I.
t
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-A/R-000l (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 7 of 15

believes to be commensurate to the offense he committed. He IS likewise

disqualified from holding public office perpetually.

SO ORDERED. IS

It is from the said judgment that accused has interposed the present
appeal based on the following assignment of errors:

The Regional Trial Court Branch 26 of Surallah, South Cotabato

erred in finding the Accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for the following
acts:

1. He caused the revision and alteration of the specification

for the construction of the Water Development at the
Municipal Resettlement Project Plan without the approval
of the NHA; and

2. Ile recommended the payment of up to 82.6% work

completion when he pretty well know that the same was not
correct, such was baseless and cause damage to the
~ 16
( rovernment;

Appellant essentially argues that: (i) Sec. 2 of Presidential Decree

(P.D.) No. 1594 allows revisions in the specifications of government
infrastructure proj ects; 17 and (ii) he merely recommended the payment of
funds correlative to the completion of the project as per 82.6%
accomplishment, thus it should be government officials who ultimately
approved the payment that should be held accountable. 18

On the other hand, the appellee argues that the trial court did not err in
finding appellant gu ilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019.

RULING OF THE COURT

Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 provides:

Section .3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts
or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute COITUptpractices of any public officer and are

--------.-
15
hereby declared la be unlawful:

Rollo, pp. 65-66.

--
..
r
16 Brieffor the Accused-Appellant dated 28 May 2017, pp. 3-4; Rol/o, pp. 94-95.
17 Id, pp. 10-13; Rollo, pp. 101-104.
18 [d., pp. 13-15; Rollo, pp. 104-106.
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-AlR-000l (Crirn. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 8 of 15

xxx xxx xxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concess Ions.

The essential elements of the said crime are as follows:

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 undue lnJury to any party, including the
government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. 19

First Element

There is no question that appellant was a public officer at the time of

the incident in question, and that his employment as the Municipal Engineer
of the Municipality of Banga directly enabled him to commit the offense as
charged.

Second Element

Appellant is accused of having acted with evident bad faith, which has
been defined by the Supreme Court as follows:20 '

The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 30] 9 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 RA 3019 is enough to
convict."
--------.-.--
19 Consigna v. People, G.R . .\10.175750-51,2 Apri12014; Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-
17,25 October 2004, citing Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 84571,2 October 1989.
20 Sison v. People, G.R. Nos, 170339, 170398-403,9 March 20 10.
" Fonacier v Sandiganbayan, G, R. No. 50691,5 December 19r
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-A/R-OOOl (Crirn, Case No. 4560-B)
Page 9 of 15

Explaining what "partiality," "bad faith" and "gross negligence"

mean, we held:

xxx "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 offraud.,,22 xxx

Additionally, Uriarte v. People23 instructs that "evident bad faith" is

apparent when there is a "palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest
purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse
motive or ill will or/or other ulterior purposes."
...
In this case. appellant does not contest the findings of the court a quo
that he effectively caused the change in the specifications and materials for
the Water Development project. Neither does he contest that, as a Municipal
Engineer, and precisely in the performance of his functions as such, he
recommended payment to the contractor for an 82.86% completion rate.
Rather, appellant restates that Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1594 allows such changes
to be made, and That he merely recommended payment to the contractor,
whereas the municipality's treasurer and mayor were the ones who
ultimately caused .he release of payment for the project.

Appellant's assertions have no merit.

Sec. 2 ofP.D. No. 1594 provides:

Section 2. Detailed Engineering. No bidding and/or award of contract for a

construction pr: ~icct shall be made unless the detai led engineering investigations,
surveys, and designs for the project have been su fficiently 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 quam itv 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 Pubic Highways, of the Minister of Energy, as the case may be.

A simple reading of the text shows that the law pertains to a detailed
engineering plan and the basic requirements for the same. It does not refer to
project implementation, but indicates the need for such a plan prior to

--------.-
22

23
Id.
G.R. No. 169251,20
--
...

December 2006.
r
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-A/R-000l (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 10 of 15

bidding and award of a contract. This controversy, however, concerns

project implementation.

Variation orders - which consist of change orders, extra work orders,

and supplemental contracts - are not governed by Sec. 2 of P .D. No. 1594,
but Sec. 924 thereof. For further clarification, the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of the said law specifically covers variation orders,
accordingl y:

Cl I VARIATION ORDERS - CHANGE ORDER/EXTRA WORK

ORDER/SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT

I. VAR1ATlON ORDERS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED

AGENCY/OJi'FICE/CORPORATION TO COVER ANY increase/decrease in
quantities, INCLUDING THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW WORK ITEMS
THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT or
reclassification of WORK items THAT ARE EITHER DUE to change of
plans, design or alignment to suit actual field conditions RESULTING IN' I

disparity between the preconstruction plans used for purposes of bidding and the
"as staked plans" or construction drawings prepared after a joint survey by the
contract and the government after the award of the contract. THE
ADDITIONIDELETION OF WORKS SHOULD BE WITHIN THE
GENERAL SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AS BID AND AWARDED. A
VARIATION ORDER MAY EITHER BE IN THE FORM OF A CHANGE
ORDER, EXTRA WORK ORDER OR A SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT.

2. A Change Order may be issued by the implementing official TO

COVER ANY INCREASE/DECREASE IN QUANTITIES OF ORIGINAL
WORK ITEMS IN THE CONTRACT after the same has been FOUND TO
STIUCTLY COMPLY WITH SECTION CI-l-l AND approved by the
appropriate official if the amount of the change order is within the limits of the
former's authority to approve original contracts and under the following
conditions:

a. Where the aggregate cost of Change Order(s) is limited to 25% of

the ESCALATED original contract cost provided that no major pay
item (i.e., pay item which represents at least 20% of total estimated
cost of the contract) shall be increase by more than 100% of its
original cost. All Change Orders shall be subject to price adjustment
in accordance with duly approved guidelines.

b. Where there is decrease OR INCREASE in ORIGINAL work

ITEMS UNDER THE CONTRACT due to NECESSARY
deletion/ADDITION of work items or sections of the project.

________ o· _

24 Which provides: "Section 9. Change Order and Extra Work Order. A change order or extra work order

may be issued only for works necessary for the completion of the project and, therefore, shall be within the
general scope of the contract as bidded and awarded. All change orders and extra work orders shall be
subject to the approval of the Minister of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, the Minister
of Public Highway" or the Min ister of Energy, as the CO" may be." (
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-A/R-OOOI (Crirn. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 11 of 15

c. W here there is damage to structure and/or destruction of finished

worl: in any section of the. project due to force majeure or causes
bevond the control of man.

xxx xxx xxx

4. An EXITa Work Order may be issued by the implementing official TO

COVER THI: INTRODUCTION OF NEW WORK ITEMS after the same
has been souxn TO STlUCTLY COMPLY WITH SECTION Cl 1-1 AND
approved by the appropriate official if the amount of the Extra Work Order is
within the limits of the former's authority to approve original contracts and under
the following conditions:

a. Where there are additional works needed and necessary for the
completion improvement or protection of the project which were not
inc luded as items of work in the original contract.
b. Where there are subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site
dif.ering materially from those indicated in the contract.
c. Where there are unknown physical conditions at the site of an
1II111sllalnature differing materially from those ordinarily encountered
and generally recognized as inherent in the work or character
provided for in the contract.
d. Where there are duly approved construction drawing or any
instruction issued by the implementing office/agency during the term
of contract which involve extra cost.

5. Change Orders or Extra Work Orders may be issued on a contract upon the
approval of competent authorities provided that the cumulative amount of such
Change Orders or Extra Work Orders does not exceed the limits of the former's
authority to approve original contracts.

xxx xxx xxx

7. Any Variation Order (Change Order, Extra Work Order OR

SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT) shall be subject to the escalation formula
used to adjust tile original contract price less the cost of mobil ization. In claiming
for any Variation Order, the contractor shall, within seven (7) calendar days after
such work has heen commenced or after the circumstances leading to such
condition(s) leading to the extra cost, and within 28 calendar days deliver a
written communication giving full and detailed particulars of any extra work cost
in order that it nay be investigated in time. Failure to provide such notice in the
time stipulated shall constitute a waiver by the contract for any claim. The
preparation and submission of Change Orders, Extra Work Orders or
Supplemental Agreements are as follows:

a. If the project Engineer believes that a Change Order, Extra Work

Order 01 Supplemental Agreement should be issued, he shall prepare the
proposed Order or Supplemental Agreement accompanied with the
notice: submitted by the contractor, the plans therefor, his computations
as to the quantities of the additional works involved per item indicating
the specific stations where such works are needed, the date of his
inspections and investigations thereon, and the log book thereof, and a
detailed estimate of the unit cost of such items of work, together with
his justifications for the need of such Change Order, Extra Work Order
or Supplemental Agreement, and shall submit the same to the Regional

r
Director of office/agency/corporation concerned.
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-NR-000I (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 12 of 15 .

b. The Regional Director concerned, upon receipt of the proposed

Change Order, Extra Work Order or Supplemental Agreement shall
irnmed iately instruct the techn ical staff of the Region to conduct an on-
the-spot investigation to verify the need for the work to be prosecuted.
A report of such verification shall be submitted directly to Regional
Director concerned.

c. The Regional Director concerned after being satisfied that such

Change Order, Extra Work Order or Supplemental Agreement is
justified and necessary, shall review the estimated quantities and prices
and forward the proposal with the supporting documentation to the head
of office/agency/corporation for consideration.

d. If, after review of the plans, quantities and estimated unit cost of
the items of work involved, the proper office/agency/corporation
committee empowered to review and evaluate Change Order, Extra
Work Order or Supplemental Agreements recommends approval
thereof the head of office//agency/corporation, believe the Change
Order, Extra Work Order or Supplemental Agreement to be in order,
shall approve the same. The limits of approving authority for any
individual, and the aggregate of, Change Orders, Extra Work Orders or
Supplemental Agreements for any project of the head of
office/agency/corporation shall not be greater than those granted for an
original project.

e. THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE PROCESSING OF

VARIATION ORDERS FROM THE PREPARATION UP TO
THE APPROVAL BY THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
CONCERNED SHALL NOT EXCEED THIRTY (30) CALENDAR
DAYS.'s

The law and IRR are clear-cut as to the process by which variation
orders may be legally approved. They likewise unmistakably provide that
variations in materials pertain to increase or decrease in quantity not quality
- as in this case - unless a change in field conditions justifies additional
work items to be accomplished. /

Thus, appellant's reasoning that he caused the variation in the quality

of the materials used due to lack of availability of the items specified in the
contract has no merit, since he also consciously did not follow the process as
defined by the law for variation orders.

As a last-ditch effort, he insists that the mayor executed an affidavit

stating conformity to his actions. However, the said document lacks
evidentiary value, and even if it were properly presented and identified by
the affiant, the fact remains that the law was still transgressed.

---------_._--
r
25 Emphases in the original.
 DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-A/R-000l (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 13 of15

In light ofthese circumstances, the element of evident bad faith was

sufficiently established by the prosecution. Appellant's acts in assenting to
the change in quality of the materials, and in consciously disobeying the
process before any work done by the contractor as per the said variation was
paid for, were in violation ofP.D. No. 1594 and its IRR. This is accentuated
by the fact that he declared that the changes are correct, and that he
recommended that the contractor be paid despite failing to complete the
corresponding amount of work thereto.

Third Element

There are 1'1\/0 modes of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: (1)
by causing undue injury to a private individual or the Government, or (2) by
giving unwarranted benefits to another. As noted earlier, appellant is being
charged under the f rst mode.

Appellant's argument that damage to the government caused by

payment to the contractor is attributable to officials other than himself is
tenuous at best. It is not denied that his very mandate as Municipal Engineer
is to make sure that the infrastructure project. was being carried out
according to engineering standards and contractual quality specifications. It
is well within his functions to check and certify whether a contractor's claim
of a certain percentage of project completion is correct; it is not within the
mandate or experti se of the municipal treasurer and municipal mayor to
assess the same. By way of defense, he in fact claims that his functions as
municipal engineer are merely ceremonial, such that his recommendation for
payment as per project accomplishment in fact has no bearing. This is
tantamount to saying; that his public office is a mere surplusage. There is no
need to further discuss this baseless and strained defense.

As found by the government's auditing team, there was a declaration

that 82.86% of the project was completed, although the contractor was only
able to finish, at most, 50% of its contractual obligations. But even this is
/ subject to further scrutiny, especially considering that the materials used for
the Water Development project were all below the agreed upon engineering
and contractual specifications, and that after payment, the contractor no
longer commenced further work on the project.

On this note, the trial court committed no error in finding that

appellant's actions cumulatively caused damage to the government in the
amount ofPhp 65 I)73.00.
(
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-AlR-000l (Crim, Case No. 4560-B)
Page 14 of 15

Considering the attending circumstances and that the application of

the indeterminate sentence law would not be beneficial to appellant, the trial
court correctly meted the penalty of six years and one (1) month and
perpetual disquali fication from public office.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the 26 August 2015 Joint

Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Surallah, South' Cotabato (Branch
26) is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. ...

BA YA . JACINTO
As ociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RE~.aCRUZ
Associate Justice / Associate Justice
Chairperson

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation with the Justices of the Court's Division.

~~.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Fourth Division
DECISION
People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. Rendon
SB-16-A/R-000l (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)
Page 15 of 15

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, l certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

"l-AlltllV ustice