Crim2 Digests

RA3019 , The Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act
# 157 G.R. No. 176546
September 25, 2009
FELICITAS P. ONG, Petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent
FACTS:
Felicitas Ong was the Municipal Mayor
of Angandanan, Isabela. In 1996,
Sanggunian Members filed a case
against her for violating RA3019. The
witnesses testified that the Mayor
procured a dump truck without public
bidding. The reconditioned dump truck
that had fat tires and worn out
batteries was purchased in the
amount of P750,000. According to
them a similar truck in better
condition will not cause more than
P500,000. They presented Ramon
Sevilla, ales Manager of Christian
Motor Sales in Cabanatuan City, Nueva
Ecija, who testified that the cost of a
ten wheeler-front drive, military type
Isuzu dump truck ranges from
P190,000.00-P490,000.00.
In her defense, mayor ong said that
the subject vehicle was purchased on
August 12, 1996 for P750,000.00
through a negotiated purchase from
Josephine Ching of J.C. Trucking; that
the public bidding and prior
Sangguniang Bayan resolution were
dispensed with pursuant to
Commission on Audit (COA) Resolution

Nos. 95-24414 and 95-244-A15 which
do not require the conduct of a public
bidding on any negotiated purchase in
amounts not exceeding
P10,000,000.00;16 that the truck was
not in disrepair as the same was
inspected by the Regional Engineer
from COA who declared it fit and in
good running condition; that the
purchase was allowed by COA because
it did not issue a notice of
disallowance.
ISSUE : WON Ong violated RA3019
HELD: Yes, the court found Felicitas

Ong guilty for violating RA3019
beyond reasobnable doubt and
sentenced her
(A) Imprisonment of, after applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, six years
and one month as minimum, up to ten
years, as maximum; and
(B) Perpetual disqualification from
Public Office.
Accused is hereby ordered to RETURN
to the Municipality of Angadanan the
amount of P250,000.00.
#158 G.R. No. 144784.September

3, 2002.*
PEDRO G. SISTOZA, petitioner, vs.
ANIANO DESIERTO in his capacity
as Ombudsman, and ELISEO CO,
respondents.
FACS: Pedro Sistoza was the Director

of Bureau of Corrections. On August
1999 the PBAC of BuCor offered a
public bidding for the supply of tomato
sauce for the New Bilibid Inmates.
There were 4 bidders for the said item.
The lowest bidder was Filcrafts
Industiries but was disqualified by
PBAC on account of offering a nonregistered brand of tomato paste and
for not specifying its country of origin.
The bid was awarded to the second
lowest which was the Elias General
Merchandising, and a purchase order
was prepared by the Supply Division
and was approved and signed by
Director Sistoza. The same was
forwarded to the Department of Justice
for approval and appropriations. But it
was disapproved on the ground that
the award to Elias Gen Merchandising ,
being the second lowest bidder was
not clearly justified. The documents
were returned to BuCor.
On Oct 1999, Director Sistoza
endorsed the PO in favour of Elias
Merchandising and alluded to the fact
that the supply was already delivered
and consumed in September. The
same was disapproved the second
time.
Sistoza made a second
endorsement, and on December 1999
DOJ finally approved the PO, and
funding was prepared and paid to Elias
Mercahndising in the amount of
P240,800.
On 22 September 1999 while
efforts to secure the approval of the
purchase order were being

undertaken, respondent Eliseo Co, a
perennial bidder for supply of food
items of the New Bilibid Prison, filed an
affidavit-complaint with the Office of
the Ombudsman alleging criminal and
administrative charges for violation of
Sec. 3, par. (e), RA 3019, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, against petitioner Pedro
G. Sistoza as Director of the Bureau of
Corrections and officers and members
of its Supply Division and PBAC. He
claimed that Sistoza and his staff
conspired with each other to cause
undue injury to the government and
the inmates of the New Bilibid Prison
by giving undue advantage to Elias
General Merchandise although its bid
was higher in price and lower in
quantity than that offered by Filcrafts
Industries, Inc.
ROBERTO E. CHANG and PACIFICO

D. SAN MATEO, petitioners, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent.
On May 2000, the Ombudsman

recommended the filing of criminal
charges against Sistoza and his coconspoirators for the violation of
RA3019.
On their first lunch mtg in Makati

Sports Club, Magat was convinced by
the two to pay P125,000 to resolve
his tax issue.
ISSUE: Whether or Not Sistoza is guilty

of RA3019
HELD: No. The court dismissed the
case against him for want of
reasonable ground.
# 159 G.R. No. 165111. July 21,

2006.*
FACTS:
Roberto Chang was the Municipal
Treasurer of Makati. Pacifico San Mateo
was the Chief of Operations of
Business Revenue Department of
Makti city.
In 1991, Assessment notices were sent
to Group Developers Inc to settle their
tax deficiency in the amount of
P494,000. San Mateo who had been
calling GDIs Accounting department
asked to talk to someone re
assessment, was able to speak via
phone with Mario Magat, the COO of
GDI. He was able to convince Magat to
have lunch with him and Chang.
When San Mateo came to Magats

Office to collect , he was given a check
payable to City of Makati. San Mateo
explained that the money will not be
going to City of Makati but to absolve
GDI of their tax deficiency. San Mateo
further stressed to Magat that they
only had 2 options, either to pay
P494,000 or the P125,000, or they will
have their company closed.
Magat said that he had to get approval

from the top management of GDI.
GDI asked the help of NBI to entrap
Chang and San Mateo. A lunch
meeting with the two was set up in
Makati Sports Club where the two
were nabbed after accepting the cash
from Magat.
ISSUE: WON Chang and San Mateo are
liable for RA3019
HELD: Yes. From the evidence for the
prosecution, it was clearly established
that the criminal intent originated
from the minds of petitioners. Even
before the June 19, 1991 meeting took
place, petitioners already made known
to Magat that GDI only had two
options to prevent the closure of the
company, either to pay the assessed
amount of P494,601.11 to the
Municipality, or pay the amount of
P125,000 to them.
#159 [G.R. No. 139807. June 7,

2000]
FLORANTE M. SORIQUEZ vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.
FACTS: That on or about February 29
to June 15, 1996, or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in the Province of

Pampanga, Philippines, above-named
accused public officers from the
Department of Public Works and
Highways, namely, Florante Soriquez,
Program Director MPR-PMO, Romeo P.
Mendoza, Rey S. David, Ulysis Maago,
Juan M. Gonzales and Gil A. Rivera, all
Supervising Engineers, MPR-PMO, and
private individuals, Ariel T. Lim, CEO,
Alberto Teolengco, Neil Allan T. Mary
and Remigio Angtia, Jr. of Atlantic
Erectors, Inc., , by reason of their
respective official functions, did
consent, allow and/or permit the

contractor, Atlantic Erectors, Inc.,
represented by aforenamed accused
private individuals, to disregard and/or
deviate from the plans and
specifications of Contract Package No.
25 in constructing the Transverse
Section of the Pasig-Potrero River
Diking System (popularly known as the
Megadike) in violation of the material
provision of said contract, and
thereafter allow the contractor to
collect and receive P38,289,708.61,
despite the violation, and which
breach of contract caused the collapse

of substantial portion of the transverse
dike, thereby causing prejudice and
damage to the government.
ISSUE: WON the accused public
officials were guilty of RA3019
HELD: Case was dismissed against
accused for lack of sufficient evidence.

Crim2 Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim2 Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim2 Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RA3019 , The Anti-graft and Corrupt

Commission on Audit (COA) Resolution

HELD: Yes, the court found Felicitas

#158 G.R. No. 144784.September

FACS: Pedro Sistoza was the Director

purchase order were being

ROBERTO E. CHANG and PACIFICO

On May 2000, the Ombudsman

On their first lunch mtg in Makati

ISSUE: Whether or Not Sistoza is guilty

# 159 G.R. No. 165111. July 21,

When San Mateo came to Magats

Magat said that he had to get approval

#159 [G.R. No. 139807. June 7,

subsequent thereto, in the Province of

consent, allow and/or permit the

breach of contract caused the collapse

You might also like