PLAMERAS v.

PEOPLE
04 September 2013

FACTS:
Antique Governor Plameras received 2 checks amounting to P5.6M from DECS-Poverty Alleviation
Fund drawn against LBP for the purchase of school desks and armchairs. Checks were deposited with
LBP where Antique maintains an account. Later on, Antique, through Plameras, issued a check drawn
against its account at LBP Antique in the same amount and deposited it to the LBP Pasig.

Plameras signed a Purchaser-Seller Agreement for the Supply and Delivery of Monoblock Grader’s
Desks with CKL Enterprises. He applied with the LBP Head Office for the opening of an Irrevocable
Domestic Letter of Credit in behalf of the Provincial School Board of Antique. Plameras signed the
sales invoice stating that he received and accepted the desks and table armchairs in good order and
condition. Upon inquiry, it was reported that CKL failed to deliver all the desks and table armchairs.
Both parties failed to settle the matter, thus a civil case was filed against CKL to refund the amount
paid.

While the civil case was pending, a case was filed in the Sandiganabayan against Plameras for
violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 by the following facts:
1. payment was made before the desks and chairs were delivered
2. procurement was made without the required authorization from the Provincial School Board
3. proper procedure was disregarded, there being no bidding process.
Plameras contended that he never profited in the transaction. He insisted he had no hand in choosing
the procurement method and the means of effecting payment. Sandiganbayan found only Plameras
guilty and sentenced him with imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office.

ISSUE: Whether or not Plameras was guilty

HELD:
1. Yes.
The elements of Sec. 3(e) that should be complied with to render the accused guilty are:
a) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions
b) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence; and
c) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government or giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
functions.

There is "manifest partiality" when there is clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection
to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad
judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral
obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith
"contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive
of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross in excusable negligence" refers to
negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with
conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.

Any procurement or acquisition of supplies or property by LGUs shall be through competitive

public bidding. Plameras admitted he was aware of such rule, yet still proceeded with the
transaction without bidding. Intentionally or not, it is his duty to act in a circumspect manner to
protect government funds. To do otherwise is gross inexcusable negligence, at the very least,
especially so, that petitioner acted on his own initiative and without authorization from the
Provincial School Board.