Cunanan vs.

People

Facts:
Joey Marquez is the mayor of Paranaque city together with the city treasurer,
accountant, and city budget officer acting as such and committing the offense in relation
to their official duties and taking advantage of their official positions, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another and with the accused private individual
ANTONIO RAZO, the owner and proprietor of ZARO Trading.

On 1996, Petitioners bought walistingting to Zaro trading for 25 pesos per piece
without complying with the commissions on audit which requires public bidding.
Walistingting is overprices since it only cost 11 pesos per piece on the sample of COA.

On 1997, they bought 15 pesos each.

Both petitioners insist that the fact of overpricing, upon which the charge against
them of graft and corruption is based, had not been established by the quantum of
evidence required in criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioners
maintain that the evidence of overpricing, consisting of the report of the Special
Audit Team and the testimony thereon of Bermudez, constitutes hearsay and, as
such, is inadmissible against them.

In addition, petitioner Marquez points out that the finding of overpricing was not
shown to a reliable degree of certainty as required by COA Memorandum No. 97-012
dated March 31, 1997. In all, petitioners asseverate that, as the overpricing was not
sufficiently established, necessarily, the last criminal element of Section 3(g) of R.A. No.
3019 a contract or transaction grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government
was not proven.

For a charge under Section 3(g) to prosper, the following elements must be
present: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or
transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is
grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.

The presence of the first two elements of the crime is not disputed.

Issue: Whether the walistingting purchase contracts were grossly and manifestly injurious
or disadvantageous to the government.

Held: No. SC agree with petitioners that the fact of overpricing is embedded in the third criminal
element of Section 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019. Given the factual milieu of this case, the subject
contracts would be grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government if characterized by
an overpriced procurement. However, the gross and manifest disadvantage to the government was
not sufficiently shown because the conclusion of overpricing was erroneous since it was not also
adequately proven.
 COA officials bought walistingting from supplier from Las Pinas which they compared its
price withone bought by Joey Marquez. However, the walistingting bought by COA and Joey
Marquez were different of speculation. Thus the prosecution was not able to prove reasonable
doubt.