by Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
LEONARDO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 246451 (03 FEBRUARY 2021):
BENEFITING FROM THE BID OF THE MUNICIPALITY FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT CONSTITUTES GRAFT
On 03 February 2021, the Supreme Court issued a Decision of even date in G.R. No. 246451 entitled “Stewart G. Leonardo vs. People of the Philippines”. The Supreme Court’s Second Division issued the Decision upholding the conviction of the former Mayor of the Municipality of Quezon, Bukidnon for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the case stemmed from a purchase of heavy equipment by the Municipality of Quezon sometime in May 2010 by the petitioner, then Mayor Stewart Leonardo.
LGU Quezon, through petitioner, joined the auction conducted by United Auctioneers, Inc. (“UAI”) in Subic, Olongapo City. It paid a bid deposit in the amount of Php100,000.00 to be deducted from the purchase price in case of a successful bid. Petitioner personally attended the auction. Using the bid book and bid deposit of Quezon, petitioner bid for five (5) trucks in the amount of Php6,387,500.00 on behalf of Quezon. He also bid for two (2) small equipment (hydraulic excavator and front cut unit cabin) amounting to a total of Php1,670,000.00 for himself. Quezon was eventually declared the winning bidder of all seven (7) equipment. UAI issued Quezon a single statement of account. As for the receipts, UAI issued two (2), both in the name of Quezon, i.e., one for Php6,387,500.00 and another for Php1,570,000.00. As regards to Php100,000.00 bid deposit, it appeared to have been deducted not from the purchase price for the five (5) equipment purchased by Quezon but for the two (2) equipment bought by petitioner for his personal use. As a result, the balance price for the two items was reduced from Php1,670,000.00 to Php1,570,000.00. The deeds of sale of seven (7) purchased items were all place in the name of LGU Quezon as vendee. All equipment were transported together.
In the Decision, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner by the Sandiganbayan. It restated the elements of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, to wit: (1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he or she must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (3) his or her action caused injury to any party, including the government, or giving any party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his or her official functions. The Court also reiterated the definition of “manifest partiality” as a “clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another” and “evident bad faith” as “not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.”
The Supreme Court held that “petitioner acted with both manifest partiality and evident bad faith when he took advantage of his public office to secure unwarranted benefits for himself, allowing Quezon’s bid deposit to be credited to his personal purchase price; and causing the equipment he personally bought to be transported using the transport arrangement of Quezon without him spending anything therefor.”
The Supreme Court held that his presence in the auction militates against his case as he cannot claim lack of knowledge that the Php100,000.00 bid deposit was credited to the purchase price of his personal equipment since he only paid Php1,570,000.00 instead of Php1,670,000.00. Likewise, on the issue of transportation, the Supreme Court held that while petitioner alleges that he did pay for the transportation expenses for the equipment by paying Php30,000.00 in order to support his claim of good faith, record, however, shows that he did not actually pay the said amount and considered the same as a loan to Quezon to complete the transportation of the trucks, including his own equipment. The Supreme Court noted the evidence on this which is when petitioner eventually sought reimbursement for the entire Php30,000.00 transportation cost.
What is interesting in the instant case is that it apparently offsets recent rulings of the Supreme Court wherein those who returned or reimbursed the government the disallowed amount got exonerated. In the instant case, petitioner Leonardo was not able to find succor to this recent paradigm as petitioner only reimbursed the Php100,000.00 after five (5) months after repeated demands from the Municipal Accountant. This is a lesson for our public officials to be extra careful not to use their office for personal gains.