Supreme Court clears Joey Marquez in 'broom' case

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court cleared yesterday former Parañaque City Mayor Joey Marquez of graft in connection with the controversial purchase of walis tingting (brooms) by the city government during his term.

In a 20-page decision, the third division of the High Court reversed the ruling of the Sandiganbayan in August 2007 that found Marquez and then city general services office head Ofelia Caunan guilty of violating Section 3(g) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and sentenced them to imprisonment of up to 50 years. The Court said the anti-graft court erred in concluding there was overprice in the purchase of walis tingting from January 1996 to September 1997 without public bidding.

“The gross and manifest disadvantage to the government was not sufficiently shown because the conclusion of overpricing was erroneous since it was not adequately proven,” stated the decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura. “The reasoning of the Sandiganbayan is specious and off-tangent. The audit team reached a conclusion of gross overpricing based on documents, which, at best, would merely indicate the present market price of walis tingting of a different specification, purchased from a non-supplier of Parañaque City and the price of walis tingting in Las Piñas City,” the Court said. It further ruled that the prosecution was “unable to demonstrate the requisite burden of proof, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt in order to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of petitioners.

Three elements

The SC ruled the Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 covers three elements: accused is a public officer, official entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government, and such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.

In the case of Marquez, the Court noted that the Sandiganbayan merely relied on the finding of the Commission on Audit of overpricing which was, in turn, based on the special audit team’s report. However, the Court stressed that the evidence of the prosecution, as consistently pointed out by Marquez and Caunan, “did not include a signed price quotation from the walis tingting suppliers of Parañaque City.” In fact, even the walis tingting furnished the audit team by petitioners and the other accused was different from the walis tingting actually utilized by the Parañaque City street sweepers at the time of the ocular inspection by the audit team.

The Court also ruled that lack of public bidding does not automatically equate to a manifest and gross disadvantage to the government. “The absence of a public bidding may mean that the government was not able to secure the lowest bargain in its favor and may open the door to graft and corruption. However, this does not satisfy the third element of the offense charged, because the law requires that the disadvantage must be manifest and gross,” it explained.

The Sandiganbayan also held that the prosecution evidence, specifically the testimony of State Auditor Fatima Bermudez and the Special Audit Team’s report, did not constitute hearsay evidence. – With Dennis Cancamo