G.R. No.

202408, June 27, 2018

FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202409
ULAMA S. BARAGUIR Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202412
DATUKAN M. GUIANI Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
LEONEN, J.:
FACTS:

For the Court's resolution are three (3) consolidated Petitions for Review on certiorari
concerning alleged anomalies in the implementation of infrastructure projects within the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The Petitions, separately docketed as G.R. Nos.
202408, 202409, and 202412, question the Sandiganbayan's December 8, 2011 decision and June
19, 2012 Resolution in Criminal Case Nos. 24963-24983. The assailed judgments declared Farouk
B. Abubakar (Abubakar) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 10 counts of violation of Section 3(e)
of Republic Act No. 3019, and Ulama S. Baraguir (Baraguir) and Datukan M. Guiani (Guiani) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of 17 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners violated Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019

HELD:

Yes, petitioners violated Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 punishes a public officer who causes "any undue
injury to any party, including the Government" or gives "any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence".
The Court finds that petitioners Baraguir and Guiani gave unwarranted benefits and
advantage to several contractors by allowing them to deploy their equipment ahead of the
scheduled public bidding. As a matter of policy, public contracts are awarded through competitive
public bidding. The acts of identifying certain contractors ahead of the scheduled public bidding
and of allowing the advanced deployment of their equipment through the issuance of certificates
of mobilization are glaring irregularities in the bidding procedure that engender suspicion of
favoritism and partiality towards the seven (7) contractors. These irregularities create a
reasonable, if not conclusive, presumption that the concerned public officials had no intention of
complying with the rules on public bidding and that the results were already predetermined.