G.R. No. 144784.

September 3, 2002
PEDRO G. SISTOZA versus ANIANO DESIERTO in his capacity as Ombudsman,
and ELISEO CO
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Sec. 3, par. (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence must be committed in so blatant and
shocking a manner. Mere procedural lapses and slight negligence, while relying in good
faith on ones subordinates, do not fall within the purview of this crime.
Under

The absence of probable cause is a ground for the dismissal of a criminal case, in order
to save the defendant from the costs and strain of a senseless litigation. This applies to
the Ombudsmans Office in relation to the Supreme Court.
FACT

Pre-Qualification, Bid and Awards

Committee (PBAC) of the Bureau of Corrections to secure an order of tomato paste for the food
supply of the inmates of New Bilibid Prison. Elias General Merchandising offered a bid of
P1,350.00 for 100/170 tins-grams to one (1) case while RBJJ and PMS Trading
Enterprises tendered their respective bids for the same quantity at the higher prices of
P1,380.10 and P1,380.05 per case. Filcrafts Industries, Inc., proffered P539.00 for the
quantity of 48/198 tins-grams to one (1) case. Filcraft Industries offer was disqualified
for not meeting certain qualifications such as offering a non-registered brand of tomato
paste. The second-lowest bid, from Elias General Merchandising, won the bidding.
However, Elias General Merchandising increased the quantity of its tomato paste while
increasing the bid. This was approved by the PBAC. Petitioner Pedro Sistoza was the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections, and had the duty to sign the purchase order for the
tomato paste after they have been cleared by his subordinates. He cursorily read the order,
along with the supporting documents, then signed. He endorsed the purchase order to the
DOJ, but it was initially rejected for being the second-lowest bidder. Upon learning of the
DOJs rejection, Elias General Merchandising offered to decrease its bid at P1,120.00 for
100 cans/170 grams. The Bureau of Corrections, however, offered the lowest bid by
Filcraft Industries which Elias General Merchandising refused. Nevertheless, Sistoza
endorsed Elias General Mechandisings latest offer to the DOJ. This was rejected twice
until it was finally approved.
On 10 August 1999, there was a bidding initiated by the

On 22 September 1999 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.
The complaint was initially dismissed by the Ombudsman. However, on 29 March 2000
the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Office of the Ombudsman found that the
irregularities in the change of price and quantity of the tomato paste were indicia of an
anomaly. The Ombudsmans Office filed the information before the Sandiganbayan on 14
June 2000. On 22 June 2000 Sistoza filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for
reinvestigation and suspension of proceedings. The Sandiganbayan granted the
reinvestigation, but not the suspension. On 18 October 2000 the SC issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining the Sandiganbayan from conducting further proceedings.
ISSUE
I.
II.

WON Sistoza is guilty of violating the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act based on his mere
signatures in the purchase orders
WON the SC should order the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case against Sistoza

HELD
I. No, Sistoza is not guilty of the crime charged based merely on his signatures. To

begin with, before

manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence may even be
considered, the Office of the Ombudsman should determine with certainty the facts
indicative of the modalities of committing a transgression of the statute.

Simply alleging each or all of these methods is not enough to establish probable cause,
for it is well settled that allegation does not amount to proof. Good faith on the part of
petitioner as with any other person is presumed. The facts themselves must demonstrate
evident bad faith which 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. On the other hand, gross inexcusable negligence does
not signify mere omission of duties nor plainly the exercise of less than the standard
degree of prudence. Rather, it 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.
The facts do not show that Sistoza actually committed the crime charged through any of
the modes established by law. Sistoza simply made an erroneous assessment, while
relying, in good faith, on his subordinates. His act of cursorily reading the purchase order
was simple negligence, and not as gross as that of the crime charged.
II. Yes, the Sandiganbayan should dismiss the case against Sistoza. In Cabahug vs
People the SC ruled that the absence of probable cause is a ground to dismiss a case
in order to save the defendant from the strain and costs of a senseless litigation. This
power applies to the Office of the Ombudsman as well.