FACTS : These consolidated petitions for review challenge the Sandiganbayan’s April 20, 2015 Decision and July 20, 2015 Resolution convicting Romualdo J. Bawasanta, Rodolfo G. Valencia, and Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. for violations of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with a Credit Agreement between the Oriental Mindoro provincial government and Alfredo M. Atienza. Valencia, as Governor, Umali, as Provincial Administrator, and Bawasanta, as SP member, were found liable for unlawfully granting unwarranted benefits and privileges to Atienza, acting with manifest partiality and in bad faith. The Sandiganbayan emphasized that the Credit Agreement was grossly disadvantageous to the government, as it extended unsecured credit to a private party for non-public purposes and contrary to legal objections raised by the Provincial Treasurer and Auditor. Valencia authorized the loan and disbursement over their objections; Umali approved the disbursement without exercising discretionary powers or following Dalisay’s recommendations; and Bawasanta, as SP member, approved the appropriation without properly assessing its legality. The Court noted that the three officials acted in conspiracy, making them criminally liable as co-principals. Motions for reconsideration filed by Valencia, Umali, and Bawasanta were denied by the Sandiganbayan, leading to the present petitions for review, while Valencia was later granted leave to travel abroad.
ISSUE : SB erred in ruling that the Credit Agreement was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government
HELD : These consolidated petitions for review challenge the Sandiganbayan’s April 20, 2015 Decision and July 20, 2015 Resolution convicting Romualdo J. Bawasanta, Rodolfo G. Valencia, and Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. for violations of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with a Credit Agreement between the Oriental Mindoro provincial government and Alfredo M. Atienza. Valencia, as Governor, Umali, as Provincial Administrator, and Bawasanta, as SP member, were found liable for unlawfully granting unwarranted benefits and privileges to Atienza, acting with manifest partiality and in bad faith. The Sandiganbayan emphasized that the Credit Agreement was grossly disadvantageous to the government, as it extended unsecured credit to a private party for non-public purposes and contrary to legal objections raised by the Provincial Treasurer and Auditor. Valencia authorized the loan and disbursement over their objections; Umali approved the disbursement without exercising discretionary powers or following Dalisay’s recommendations; and Bawasanta, as SP member, approved the appropriation without properly assessing its legality. The Court noted that the three officials acted in conspiracy, making them criminally liable as co-principals. Motions for reconsideration filed by Valencia, Umali, and Bawasanta were denied by the Sandiganbayan, leading to the present petitions for review, while Valencia was later granted leave to travel abroad.
The consolidated petitions challenge the Sandiganbayan’s April 20, 2015 Decision and July 20, 2015 Resolution convicting Romualdo J. Bawasanta, Rodolfo G. Valencia, and Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. for violating Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with a Credit Agreement between the Oriental Mindoro provincial government and Alfredo M. Atienza. The Sandiganbayan held that the Credit Agreement was grossly disadvantageous to the government, as it extended unsecured credit to a private party for non-public purposes, contrary to legal objections from the Provincial Treasurer and Auditor. Valencia authorized the loan and disbursement despite these objections; Umali approved the disbursement without exercising his discretionary powers or following recommendations to withhold it; and Bawasanta, as SP member, approved the appropriation without assessing its legality. The court found the three acted in conspiracy, making them co-principals liable for the crime. Their motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting these petitions, while Valencia was later granted leave to travel abroad.
No comments:
Post a Comment