Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 154 views

    Alvarez Vs People

    Uploaded by

    oabeljeanmonique
    The Sandiganbayan convicted Efren Alvarez for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for authorizing an MOA with an unqualified contractor for a municipal shopping mall project without competitive bidding. The court found Alvarez railroaded the project, disregarded BOT laws, and the municipality suffered ₱4.8 million in damages from demolishing structures. The Supreme Court ruled damage does not need to be proven for conviction, as the prosecution demonstrated Alvarez acted with manifest partiality and gross negligence in awarding the contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Alvarez Vs People

    Uploaded by

    oabeljeanmonique
    154 views1 page
    The Sandiganbayan convicted Efren Alvarez for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for authorizing an MOA with an unqualified contractor for a municipal shopping mall project without competitive bidding. The court found Alvarez railroaded the project, disregarded BOT laws, and the municipality suffered ₱4.8 million in damages from demolishing structures. The Supreme Court ruled damage does not need to be proven for conviction, as the prosecution demonstrated Alvarez acted with manifest partiality and gross negligence in awarding the contract.

    Original Description:

    Alvarez vs People

    Original Title

    Alvarez vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Sandiganbayan convicted Efren Alvarez for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for authorizing an MOA with an unqualified contractor for a municipal shopping mall project without competitive bidding. The court found Alvarez railroaded the project, disregarded BOT laws, and the municipality suffered ₱4.8 million in damages from demolishing structures. The Supreme Court ruled damage does not need to be proven for conviction, as the prosecution demonstrated Alvarez acted with manifest partiality and gross negligence in awarding the contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Alvarez Vs People

    Uploaded by

    oabeljeanmonique
    The Sandiganbayan convicted Efren Alvarez for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for authorizing an MOA with an unqualified contractor for a municipal shopping mall project without competitive bidding. The court found Alvarez railroaded the project, disregarded BOT laws, and the municipality suffered ₱4.8 million in damages from demolishing structures. The Supreme Court ruled damage does not need to be proven for conviction, as the prosecution demonstrated Alvarez acted with manifest partiality and gross negligence in awarding the contract.

    Copyright:

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

    EFREN L.

    ALVAREZ vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


    G.R. No. 192591; June 29, 2011

    Facts:

    The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Muñoz passed a resolution authorizing petitioner to enter into a
    Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with API for the project in connection with the municipal
    government’s plan to construct a four-storey shopping mall ("Wag-wag Shopping Mall"), a
    project included in its Multi-Development Plan.

    Petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
    (SB-06-CRM-0389). The Sandiganbayan rendered judgment convicting the petitioner after
    finding that: (1) petitioner railroaded the project; (2) there was no competitive bidding; (3) the
    contractor was totally unqualified to undertake the project; and (4) the provisions of the BOT law
    and relevant rules and regulations were disregarded and not followed. The said court also found
    that the municipal government suffered damage and prejudice with the resulting loss of several
    of its buildings and offices, and having deployed its resources including equipment, personnel
    and financial outlay for fuel and repairs in the demolition of the said structures. Damage suffered
    by the municipal government was quantified at ₱4.8 million, or 2% of the total project cost of
    ₱240 million, representing the amount of liquidated damages due under the performance security
    had the same been posted by the contractor as required by law. As to the allegation of
    conspiracy, the Sandiganbayan held that such was adequately shown by the evidence, noting that
    this is one case where the Ombudsman should have included the entire Municipal Council in the
    information for the latter had conspired if not abetted all the actions of the petitioner in his
    dealings with API to the damage and prejudice of the municipality.

    Issue: Whether or not damage or injury need to be proven to warrant the conviction of the
    Accused-Petitioner.

    Ruling: NO. The third element of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 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 R.A. No.
    3019 is enough to convict.20 Damage or injury caused by petitioner’s acts though alleged in the
    information, thus need not be proven for as long as the act of giving any private party
    unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference either through manifest partiality, evident bad
    faith or gross inexcusable negligence was satisfactorily established. Contrary to petitioner’s
    assertion, the prosecution was able to successfully demonstrate that he acted with manifest
    partiality and gross inexcusable negligence in awarding the BOT contract to an unlicensed and
    financially unqualified private entity.

    You might also like