TRIESTE SR. v.

SANDIGANBAYAN (1986) actually emergency direct purchases by

ACCUSED Generoso Trieste, Municipal Mayor
of NUMANCIA, AKLAN
12 informations filed by TANODBAYAN
against petitioner for violation of SEC 3 (b)
of RA 3019
Allegedly, TRIESTE as Municipal Mayor and
member of the Committee on Award of the
Municipality of Numancia Aklan, had admin
control of the funds and whose approve is
required in their disbursements... had
financial or pecuniary interest in a
business/contract/transaction in connection
with which accused intervened or took part in
his official capacity, which is prohibited by law
 particularly purchases of construction
materials by Municipality of Numancia Aklan
from TRIGEN AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEV’T CORP
 of which accused TRIESTE is president,
incorporator, director and major
stockholder
 for the various amounts (TOTAL:
7,730PHP), he awarded the supply and
delivery of said materials to TRIGEN &
approved payment to said corp in violation of
RA 3019 (as evidenced by 12 different cash
vouchers)
personal canvass
 SOLGEN argued that court is not a trier of
facts  argued dismissal
 EARLIER, SOLGEN ARGUED that
petitioner’s evidence of divestment of interest
in TRIGEN (which was effected before his
Mayorship) should have been presented at
the earliest opportunity  Transfer of interest
should have been recorded in SEC
 BUT SOLGEN ITSELF Manifested for
Acquittal, BECAUSE:
- 1) PROSECUTION moved for failed to
prove charges  evidence discloses
absence of bidding and award
- 2) No evidence that TRIESTE approved
payment
- 3) Testimonial and documentary
evidence confirms that TRIESTE only
signed vouchers after payment
- 4) TRIGEN did not gain any undue
advantage in the transaction
SC RULING: ayan tama naman si SOLGEN
ok ACQUITTED

 SB DECISION: CONVICTED
PETITIONER OF ALL 12 INFOS

 sentenced in each case to indeterminate

penalty of (3Y + 1D  6Y + 1D) + PERPETUAL
DISQUALIFICATION from public office

Petition for review in SC

 FILED in SC petition to lift order of SB which

suspended him from Office as his term was
about to expire  NO OBJECTION 
preventive suspension LIFTED  reinstated as
Mayor

FILED Supplemental pleading  alleging that

he did not intervene in the purchases as he
only signed the voucher when said purchases
were ALREADY MADE  that there was no
bidding as erroneously adverted to by the
informations, because the transactions were
ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE (2012)
ACCUSED Efren Alvarez, Mayor of the
Municipality of MUNOZ (Now Science City of
MUNOZ, NUEVA ECIJA)  SEC 3(e) of RA
3019
FACTS (as taken from BERSAMIN’S dissent)
* BOT LAW/RA 7718 (Build-Operate-Transfer)
JUL 7 1995: SANGGU BAYAN of MUNOZ
invited JESS GARCIA, President of Australian
Professional INC to participate in the planned
construction of 4-story WAG WAG SHOPPING
MALL.
FEB 1996: Tabloid PINOY published the
invitation for proposals for the mall project,
giving interested bidders 30 DAYS to submit
offers.
APR 12 1996: The Pre-qualification, Bids and
Awards Committee (PBAC… headed by
ALVAREZ din) recommended the approval of
the proposal submitted by API  THE ONLY
INTERESTED BIDDER.
APR 15 1996: SANGGU BAYAN passed a
resolution authorizing ALVAREZ to enter into
a MOA with API regarding the project.
SEP 12 1996: ALVAREZ & API entered into
the said contract
FEB 14 1997: Groundbreaking ceremony
was held on site (where Dept of Agriculture,
BIR, Office of the Assessor, Post office,
COMELEC and DSWD used to be). API later
started the excavation, and a BILLBOARD was
put up, informing the public about the project
and its contractor placed on site.
TL;DR? no problem. Read this:
So in 1995 – 1998, Alvarez was authorized by
the Sangguniang Bayan of Munoz to enter into
a contract with Australian Professional Inc for
the construction of the 4-story WAG WAG
SHOPPING MALL  Published notice, bidding
where API was the sole bidder and thus
awarded the project (240m PHP total project
cost)  began the project (the designated lot
was previously used for a 1story building with
several departments  see long version ^)
but it went unfinished  allegedly, API was
incompetent/grossly inadequate for the
project and alvarez KNEW
AUG 10, 2006: ALVAREZ was charged with
violation of SEC 3(e) of the RA 3019
STATE argued & adduced evidence that:
- Petitioner knew API had no capacity 
API did not have a Contractor’s License
(from the PH Construction
Accreditation Board)
- API’s application for registration was
approved on JUL 28 1995  its capital
stock was 40m and its paid up capital
was 2.5m (from the SEC)
- Vice Mayor of MUNOZ from 92-98, said
that ALVAREZ requested the Sanggu to
grant him authority to contract with API
on the construction of the Wag Wag
Shopping Mall under the BOT scheme
 because PBAC, headed ALSO by
ALVAREZ, recommended acceptance of
the proposal of API
ALVAREZ’ DEFENSE WAS THAT API DID
NOT SUBMIT NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
AND POST NOTICES (when Alvarez
required them to) BECAUSE THE BOT LAW
DID NOT REQUIRE THEM ANYWAY.
 among others he also said that the
municipality borrowed money from
GSIS  that VMayor Ruiz showed him
(Alvarez) the publications of the OTHER
BOT projects of API in the Manila
Bulletin and Business Bulletin  that
they issued notice of award  that they
complained about the slow pace of the
project by letter, which went unheeded
because the president of API was in
Europe
 emphasized that the Municipality did
not suffer damage because it did NOT
SPEND A CENTAVO; that the project
was an unsolicited proposal under the
BOT law  that API paid a disturbance
fee of 500k  that Sanggu authorized
him to file cases against API in order to
terminate the agreement  that they
 DID mutually terminate the agreement
 that there was no copy of the
compromise agreement because fire
had razed the premises of the RTC in
Balok, Sto Domingo Nueva Ecija, where
the compromise settlement had been
filed.
 Also that an annual net income of 4m
had been forecast out of the 40m loan
from GSIS, that ALVAREZ conducted a
study relative to the capability of APi;
that API and PARI were one and the
same, although admittedly he did NOT
inquire from the SEC about the status
of the 2 companies  he did NOT
determine whether API was a licensed
contractor
SB RULING: CONVICTED ALVAREZ
 Project was not confirmed/approved by
the investment council of NEDA
 A shorter period was given for
comparative/competitive proposals
 Failure to meet conditions for approval
of the contract, including the posting of
a performance security
 No in-depth negotiations with
proponent
 API did NOT submit a complete
proposal
 NO CLEAR PLAN presented
 API not a licensed contractor
 Petitioner was totally REMISS IN HIS
DUTIES under the LGC
 GOVERNMENT SUFFERED DAMAGES 
public buildings were lost + demolition
costs in 4.8m PHP
ALVAREZ APPEALED IN SC. SC AFFIRMED
CONVICTION OF PETITIONER  this is the
MR now. Haha.
SO ANUNA PINAGLALABAN NI KOYA? ETO:
1. Bad faith, manifest partiality, and gross
negligence were NOT proven by
respondent  BECAUSE THERE WAS
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH RA
7718 (BOT LAW)
2. SB was mistaken in concluding ALL acts
of petitioner were illegal and irregular
 burden of proving otherwise rests on
the respondent  presumption of
regularity, because he WAS authorized
by the Sangguniang Bayan  no
dispute that he was in good faith trying
to comply with RA 7718  non
inclusion of other members of Sanggu
denied him equal protection clause of
the law
SC RULING: CONVICTED KA PARIN BUI
CLEARLY there was manifest partiality and
gross inexcusable negligence even if without
bad faith.
Submission of documents (such as
contractor’s license) are MINIMUM LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS for govt to evaluate
qualifications of a BOT proponent 
unthinkable for him to have allowed it by
relying merely on a piece of info from news
item about API’s other projects
ALVAREZ’s admission as to the
noncompliance with the posting of notices and
submission of requirements after the
awarding of the contract to API, only shows
his indifference and disregard of the BOT law
and implementing rules, which, as chief
executive, he is mandated to follow and
uphold.  it is unacceptable for him to rely on
the representations and statements of APi
ANONG SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE.
WALANG SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE KUNG
YUNG MINIMUM DI MO NAGAWA.  basta yon
Edi ”substantial basis” daw. Petitioner asserts
that there was reason for the Municipal Govt
of Munoz had the expertise and capability to
do the project because it was the same entity
involved in 2 previous major BOT projects
(150m in LEMERY, BATANGAS & 300m in
CALAMBA LAGUNA)  SC says substantial
basis is that mandated by the law  the
REQUIRING OF THE SUBMISSION OF
SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS.
** some thots  well, hindi parin naman
talaga punishable ginawa niya I mean tanga
lang siguro siya no?  but well sed lex dura
lex
GO v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2007)
ACCUSED, Ronald Go (FORMER Municipal
Mayor of Kapatagan, LANAO DEL NORTE) 
OTHERS: LABITAD, DUHAYLUNGSOD, DELA
CRUZ (former Sangguniang Bayan members)
 MAMACHAN & ANECITA GO (incumbent
Sanggu members)
Violations of SEC 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019
OCT 9 2000  OMB filed with Sandiganbayan
2 infos against petitioners, for violations of
SEC 3(e) & (g)
Petitioners posted bail and filed motion for
reinvestigation of the crim cases  SB
ordered reinvestigation  OSP conducted
reinvestigation and recommended
dismissal of the cases  haha, OMB (office
of the legal counsel) recommended
disapproval of OSP’s recommendation
TEKA ANO BA GINAWA NI GO?
Turns out  GO, as former Municipal Mayor,
contracted a lease with his son in law, NOEL
LIM, which was grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to Municipality of Kapatagan
 as opposed to the lease contract with
GLOBE TELECOM, because
1. No escalation clause in LIM contract 
escalation clause in GLOBE contract
2. LIM pays 112PHP/month for 56sqm
while globe pays 5kPHP/month for
100sqm
3. LIM’s contract is for 10 years while
GLOBE’s is for 5 yrs
** apparently a Sanggu Bayan member
(DELORIA) objected to awarding the lease to
LIM as there was a previous applicant and he
IS the son in law of then Mayor GO
Ayun. Petitioners filed Motion 2 QUASH
arguing that there was no probable cause or
prima facie case  DENIED BY SB  NO MR,
just this petition.
Pending this petition SB promulgated a
resolution granting the demurrer of evidence
filed by petitioners.
 INFO failed to allege an essential element
 that the unwarranted benefits allegedly
given to NOEL LIM resulted in undue injury to
the government. Without undue injury or
damage to any party, the lease can hardly be
said to be irregularly executed
 failed to prove manifest partiality, evident
bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence 
bad faith is not presumed eh  as to
partiality, it must be deliberate intent to do so
imputed to GO, which the court cannot
assume solely from his act of approving the
contract in favor of LIM  only showed lease
contracts as proof  failed to establish that
the accused were actuated by a dishonest
purpose or ill will partaking of a fraud or
design or ulterior purpose (SO KAILANGAN
MAY MOTIBO)
 No dispute that in the info what was alleged
was that 1) GO is a pub officer 2) GO made a
transaction on behalf of the govt 3) such was
grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to
the govt  1 & 2 elements proven, 3rd lang
talaga
 GO should not be blamed for the higher
rental rate of GLOBE considering that it was
the one that offered the higher rate for a
chosen and specified lot for its particular use,
TO THE EXCLUSION of other
telecommunication networks. Thus 
DEMURRER GRANTED BY SB
SC JUST SAID… eh pota moot & academic
na pala e. dismissed.
This fucker, rly