RODRIGO DERIQUITO VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 218652
- Promulgated: 2022-02-23
- Ponente: HERNANDO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case The Municipality of Janiuay, Iloilo, through its Mayor Franklin A. Locsin, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the DOH to implement a program for the purchase of medicines using a P15,000,000.00 fund. An invitation to bid for medical suppliers was published, responding to which were AM Europharma Corporation (Europharma), Mallix Drug Center (Mallix Drug), and Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. The bidding was postponed once due to the provincial auditor's absence. On January 15, 2001, the Committee on Awards (composed of municipal officers) proceeded with the opening of bids despite the provincial auditor's continued absence. The committee recommended awarding contracts to Europharma (P13,191,223.00) and Mallix Drug (P1,744,926.00). Mayor Locsin approved the awards, and the medicines were delivered and paid for within days. Subsequent audits revealed that Europharma's accreditation was suspended at the time of bidding, and both Europharma and Mallix Drug were owned by Rodrigo Deriquito Villanueva (petitioner). The president of Pharmawealth also disowned any participation in the bidding. These irregularities led to an investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, which found probable cause to indict the municipal officers and petitioner for violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The Sandiganbayan found petitioner and his co-accused guilty. ## Issues 1. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioner for violations not stated in the Amended Information. 2. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioner under COA Circular No. 92-386, which is not a penal law. 3. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that the accused members of the Committee on Awards railroaded the procurement of medicines, when it was an emergency procurement. 4. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in disregarding Section 368 of R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code) which allows emergency purchases without public bidding. 5. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in piercing the corporate veil of AM Europharma Corporation and considering it and Mallix Drug Center as a single bidder. 6. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding conspiracy based on circumstantial evidence. ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court **denied** the petitioner's claim that he was convicted for violations not stated in the Amended Information. The Court found that the Amended Information sufficiently alleged the acts constituting the offense, including "evident bad faith" and "manifest partiality" in giving "unwarranted benefit" to the petitioner in conspiracy with public officers. The petitioner, by being arraigned and proceeding to trial under the Amended Information, was estopped from claiming it was vague. His ability to mount a defense belied his allegations. **Issue 2:** The Court **denied** the petitioner's claim. The Sandiganbayan's citation of COA Circular No. 92-386 was a direct reference to how the petitioner and his co-accused public officers violated Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The public officers' non-compliance with the Circular and their willful omission to declare a "failed bidding" were badges of "manifest partiality" and "giving of unwarranted benefits" to the petitioner, whose acquiescence to the award constituted the charged offense. The circular was used to illustrate a violation of RA 3019, not as a penal law itself. **Issue 3 & 4:** The Court **denied** the petitioner's argument that the procurement was an "emergency purchase." The Court found that the transaction could not be characterized as an "emergency purchase" because the requisites of Section 368 of the Local Government Code of 1991 were not present. If it were truly an emergency, the public officers would not have initiated a competitive bidding process and issued Invitations to Bid. The prosecution satisfactorily established a failure of bidding because Europharma's accreditation was suspended at the time of the bid, making it unqualified. **Issue 5:** The…
Keywords
Republic Act No. 3019 Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 7160 Section 368, Rule 45 Rules of Court, Rule 110 Section 6 Rules of Court, Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil, Equipoise Doctrine, Conspiracy, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices, Public Bidding Irregularities, Government Procurement, Criminal Liability of Private Individuals, Manifest Partiality, Evident Bad Faith, Undue Injury, Unwarranted Benefits, Question of Law, Question of Fact, Petition for Review on Certiorari, Probable Cause, Conclusive Factual Findings