Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 178 views

    Plameras v. People

    Uploaded by

    GwenBañaria
    Antique Governor Plameras received funds for school supplies but deposited them in his personal account. He then contracted with a supplier for desks and chairs without following proper bidding procedures or getting authorization. The items were paid for but only partially delivered. Plameras was found guilty of violating the anti-graft law by showing gross negligence and unlawfully benefiting the supplier, as he made payments without authorization or delivery in disregard of required procedures. The court held he was criminally liable as a public officer for his actions that unduly injured the government.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Plameras v. People

    Uploaded by

    GwenBañaria
    178 views1 page
    Antique Governor Plameras received funds for school supplies but deposited them in his personal account. He then contracted with a supplier for desks and chairs without following proper bidding procedures or getting authorization. The items were paid for but only partially delivered. Plameras was found guilty of violating the anti-graft law by showing gross negligence and unlawfully benefiting the supplier, as he made payments without authorization or delivery in disregard of required procedures. The court held he was criminally liable as a public officer for his actions that unduly injured the government.

    Original Description:

    Digest for SPL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Antique Governor Plameras received funds for school supplies but deposited them in his personal account. He then contracted with a supplier for desks and chairs without following proper bidding procedures or getting authorization. The items were paid for but only partially delivered. Plameras was found guilty of violating the anti-graft law by showing gross negligence and unlawfully benefiting the supplier, as he made payments without authorization or delivery in disregard of required procedures. The court held he was criminally liable as a public officer for his actions that unduly injured the government.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    178 views1 page

    Plameras v. People

    Uploaded by

    GwenBañaria
    Antique Governor Plameras received funds for school supplies but deposited them in his personal account. He then contracted with a supplier for desks and chairs without following proper bidding procedures or getting authorization. The items were paid for but only partially delivered. Plameras was found guilty of violating the anti-graft law by showing gross negligence and unlawfully benefiting the supplier, as he made payments without authorization or delivery in disregard of required procedures. The court held he was criminally liable as a public officer for his actions that unduly injured the government.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PLAMERAS v.

    PEOPLE
    04 September 2013

    FACTS:
    Antique Governor Plameras received 2 checks amounting to P5.6M from DECS-Poverty Alleviation
    Fund drawn against LBP for the purchase of school desks and armchairs. Checks were deposited with
    LBP where Antique maintains an account. Later on, Antique, through Plameras, issued a check drawn
    against its account at LBP Antique in the same amount and deposited it to the LBP Pasig.

    Plameras signed a Purchaser-Seller Agreement for the Supply and Delivery of Monoblock Grader’s
    Desks with CKL Enterprises. He applied with the LBP Head Office for the opening of an Irrevocable
    Domestic Letter of Credit in behalf of the Provincial School Board of Antique. Plameras signed the
    sales invoice stating that he received and accepted the desks and table armchairs in good order and
    condition. Upon inquiry, it was reported that CKL failed to deliver all the desks and table armchairs.
    Both parties failed to settle the matter, thus a civil case was filed against CKL to refund the amount
    paid.

    While the civil case was pending, a case was filed in the Sandiganabayan against Plameras for
    violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 by the following facts:
    1. payment was made before the desks and chairs were delivered
    2. procurement was made without the required authorization from the Provincial School Board
    3. proper procedure was disregarded, there being no bidding process.
    Plameras contended that he never profited in the transaction. He insisted he had no hand in choosing
    the procurement method and the means of effecting payment. Sandiganbayan found only Plameras
    guilty and sentenced him with imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Plameras was guilty

    HELD:
    1. Yes.
    The elements of Sec. 3(e) that should be complied with to render the accused guilty are:
    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 gross inexcusable
    negligence; and
    c) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government or giving any
    private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
    functions.

    There is "manifest partiality" when there is clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection
    to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes 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. "Evident bad faith
    "contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive
    of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross in excusable negligence" refers to
    negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a
    situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with
    conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.

    Any procurement or acquisition of supplies or property by LGUs shall be through competitive


    public bidding. Plameras admitted he was aware of such rule, yet still proceeded with the
    transaction without bidding. Intentionally or not, it is his duty to act in a circumspect manner to
    protect government funds. To do otherwise is gross inexcusable negligence, at the very least,
    especially so, that petitioner acted on his own initiative and without authorization from the
    Provincial School Board.

    You might also like