View full case

RAUL R. LEE v. SANDIGANBAYAN FIRST DIVISION

FACTS:

This case involves the purchase of fertilizers by the Provincial Government of Sorsogon from Feshan Phils. Inc. in 2004. It was found that Feshan Phils. Inc. did not have a license from the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) during that time. Additionally, the purchase price paid by the government for the fertilizers was higher than the prices listed in the Average Prices of Fertilizers and Pesticides prepared by FPA.

Based on these findings, the Office of the Ombudsman filed four Informations against Governor Lee, Hernandez, and Velasco before the Sandiganbayan. The accused are alleged to have committed the crimes in the discharge of their official functions, acting together and showing partiality, bad faith, or negligence. They are accused of causing undue injury to the government by giving unwarranted benefit to Feshan Phils. Inc. through the dispensation of public bidding and purchasing the fertilizers through exclusive distributorship without the appropriate certificate required by law. The quantities of fertilizers purchased and the amounts paid by the government were found to be in excess of the actual costs.

The accused public officials were charged with violation of Section 3(e) and Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended. The Informations were later amended to specify the amounts of undue injury caused to the government.

In a separate charge of estafa, Governor Lee is accused of being involved in the purchase of Bio Nature Liquid Fertilizer from SHAN Phil. Inc. It is alleged that the sale was made through exclusive distributorship without the required certificate under COA Circular 92-386 and Republic Act No. 9184. Governor Lee allegedly approved the purchase of 133 liters of Bio Nature Liquid Fertilizer for an excessive amount, resulting in the government paying an excess amount to the damage of the same amount. This incident occurred in the Province of Sorsogon on May 6, 2004.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused are liable for violation of Section 3(e) and Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 in the purchase of Bio Nature Liquid Fertilizer through direct contracting.

  2. Whether the Sandiganbayan was dislodged of jurisdiction to try the case based on the ruling in Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan.

  3. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner Lee based on a finding of fact not alleged in the information, and thereby violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of accusations against him.

  4. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in not applying the ruling in Coscolluela, and thus violated his right to speedy disposition of cases and his right to equal protection of law.

  5. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred when it disregarded Caunan and Marquez in ruling on the alleged overpricing.

  6. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties and in its factual findings.

RULING:

  1. The accused are liable for violation of Section 3(e) and Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 in the purchase of Bio Nature Liquid Fertilizer through direct contracting.

  2. The Sandiganbayan was not dislodged of jurisdiction to try the case based on the ruling in Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan.

  3. The petition is unmeritorious. The Sandiganbayan did not err in ruling that petitioner Lee is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan's factual findings are generally conclusive upon the Supreme Court, especially if they are supported by substantial evidence. The exceptions to this rule are not applicable in this case. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled on the issue of unwarranted benefit and undue injury to the government in the procurement of the goods. The Sandiganbayan also found that there was no variance between the allegations in the information and the facts proven during the trial. The case of Coscolluela vs. Sandiganbayan is not applicable to this case as the circumstances are different.

  4. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in its appreciation of the evidence presented. Therefore, the Decision and Resolution of the Sandiganbayan affirming the criminal cases against petitioner Lee are upheld.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Violation of Section 3(e) and Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 in the purchase of government goods through direct contracting.

  • Duty of the Ombudsman or prosecutor to promptly act on complaints and expedite the prosecution of cases.

  • Res judicata, the final judgment or order on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive on the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent action involving the same cause of action.

  • The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and will not entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are generally conclusive upon the Supreme Court, especially if they are supported by substantial evidence.

  • Exceptions to the rule on the conclusive nature of factual findings include when the conclusion is based on speculation, mistaking inference made, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, and findings of fact are contradicted by evidence on record.

  • A question of fact requires the review of the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations of the parties and the assessment of the probative value of the evidence presented.

  • The Sandiganbayan's ruling on the issue of unwarranted benefit and undue injury to the government in the procurement of goods is based on the requirements set by law.

  • The case of Coscolluela vs. Sandiganbayan is only applicable if the circumstances are similar to the case at bar.