REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES~anbiganbapan

Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SB-16-A/R-OOOlPia intiff Appellee, (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)

For: Violation of Section 3(e),R.A. No. 3019

- versus -

JEROME B. RE~DON, Present:Accused-Appellant.

Quiroz, J., ChairpersonCruz, J.Jacinto, J.

Promulgated on:

0('/0 bc.i q I 1.6/ T

x---------------------·-----~------------------------------------------------~----------x

DECISION

JACINTO, J: •

This is an appeal from the Decision! of the Regional Trial Court(Branch 26) of Surallah, South Cotabato in Crim. Case No. 4560-8 entitled"People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Jerome B. Rendon and Allan D.Yaphockun, Accused," finding appellant JEROME BANGONON REND ONguilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwiseknown as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," as amended.

On 6 September 2006, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) chargedaccused-appellant Rendon, together with other individuals, for three (3)counts of violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, which were docketed asCriminal Case Nos. 4460-B, 4561-8, and 4562-8. The accusatory portion ofthe Information reads:

That sometime in March 2001, or shortly prior or subsequent thereto, inBarangay Benitez, Banga, South Cotabato and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable court, the above-named accused, Jerorne B. Rendon, a public officer,being then the municipal engineer of Banga, South Cotabato, committing the

t'r

I Dated 26 August 20 15; Rollo, pp. 45-66.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-AlR-OOOI (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)Page 2 of 15

offense in relation to his official duty and taking advantage of his officialposition, conspiring and confederating together with accused Allan D. Yaphokun,contractor and owner of Yap Mabuhay Enterprises, Inc., through evident badfaith, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause the violationof the provisions of the Contract of Agreement for Water Development at theMunicipal Development Project at Barangay Benitez entered on March 19, 2001by and between Yap Mabuhay Enterprises and the Municipality of Banga, byundertaking an unapproved variation order which downgraded the project'sstandard resulting to the use of substandard materials and submitting aninspection report which is over the actual accomplishment causing theunwarranted stoppage of the project thereby causing undue injury to themunicipal government of Banga, South Cotabato in the amount of more or lessP651,373.40.

CONTRARY LA W.2

The People's case is built on the testimonies of four (4) witnesses: (1)Vicenta A. Cagang;' State Auditor III at the Provincial Auditor's Office inKoronadal City; (2) Engr. Claro Fernando," Registered AgriculturalEngineer; (3) Isidro .Ianita," Municipal Mayor of Banga, South Cotabato;and, (4) Engr. Eduardo Leafio," Regional Manager of the National HousingAuthority (NHA) Region XIII, whose testimonies were summarized by thetrial court accordingly:

The filing of the cases against the accused stemmed or originated fromthe letter of Mayor lsidro J. Janita, the Mayor of Banga, South Cotabato, dated,October 23, 200 I which was referred to the Provincial Auditor of the province ofSouth Cotabato by the Director Ill, Assistant Director, Commission on Audit,Davao City under CPL-MlN-O 1-273. The Provincial Auditor upon receipt of saidreferral, Nenita F. Servafiez, State Auditor IV and the Provincial Auditor issued aPAO Special A udit Office Order No. 2002-00 I dated, June 3, 2002 directing Ms.Vicenta G. Cagang, State Auditor III to conduct the necessary audit/investigationon the alleged unfinished projects mentioned in the letter of Mayor Janita.

Ms. Viceuta G. Cagang conducted the audit and investigation as she wasdirected and submitted the result of it to the Regional Legal and AdjudicationCluster Director, Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. XII, Davao City onDecember 12, 2002. Her findings and recommendation regarding theconstruction of the Water Development at the Municipal Resettlement Project atBenitez, Banga, South Cotabato, the subject of Criminal Case No. 4650-B are asfollows:

"For violating the provtsion in the Memorandum ofAgreement by undertaking an unapproved variation order whichdowngraded the standard of project and rendering an inspectionreport on percentage ofaccomplishment which is over the actualaccomplishment due 10 uninstalled items of work and use ofcheaper materials than specified, the municipal engineer,r2 Rol/o, pp. 13-15.

3 TSN, ]0 June 2009, 34 June 2009, and 8 July 2009.4 TSN, 19 August 2009.5 TSN, 6 October 2009.6 TSN, 27 October 2009.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB:.16-A/R-OOOI (Crirn. Case No. 4560-B)Page 3 of 15

Jerome B. Rendon is liable under Section 3(e) of Republic ActNo. 3019 known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Actwhich states that:

"Causing undue injury to any party, includingthe Government, or giving any private party anyunwarranted benefits, advantage or preferencein the discharge of his official administrative orjudicial junctions through manifest partiality,evident bad faith or gross inexcusablenegligence. This provision apply to officers andemployees of offices or government corporationscharged with the grant of licenses or permits orother concessions. "

The Contractor, on the other hand, is liable to themunicipal governmentfor breach of contract is [sic] stopping theconstruction without duly informing the latter and shallindemnify the same to the extent of damage caused and unduedisadvantage to the government. The Contractor '05 failure toconstruct and complete the works in conformity in all respectswith the provisions of the contract shall warrant cancellations ofhis contractor's license.

xxx xxx xxx

Engr. Claro A. Fernando, State Auditor 11and Engr. Rolando P. Manila,Senior Technical Audit Specialist were likewise requested to help in the auditand assessment of the construction of the Water Development at the MunicipalResettlement Project and thereafter, they also submitted their findings andobservations (exhibit "N-4" to "N-S), as follows:

"1. Ins/alia/ion of1162 UPVC Main Pipes and Fillings

Inspection disclosed that UPVC for waterlines were Laid on thesurface of the ground, directly exposed to sunlight and notconforming to the minimum depth of 750ml11.This will make thepipes brittle and easily damaged due to load impact as evidencedby the cracks in some parts ofthe laid pipe system. More so, laidpipes ore exposed to pilferage as evidenced by some missingpipelines which could have been avoided had the pipes laid onthe specified depth. Payments shall only be made to the itemsconforming with the approved plans and specifications andfound to be acceptable by the government.

2. Installation of Gate Valve

No valve was found installed at the designated locations withinthe laid UP VCpipe system.

3. Construction of Elevated Steel Tank and Accessories

6" dia B.I. Pipe

t--Original Plan_Wideflange W8x28 column

Six (6) pes 16mmbolt per column

dia anchor

Implemented

FOllr (4) pes 25mm dia'?.~1chorbolt per column

DECISIONPeople oJ the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-AlR-000l (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)Page 4 of 15

4. Installation of Submersible Electric Pump

The agency reported 50% of the cost of this item with anequivalent amount of P156,000.00, however, no sign/evidence ofpump nor its accessories were installed at the time of inspection.

5. Deepwell Drilling & Development

This item has been reported 100% completed at 200 feet,however, inspection disclosed that the depth of the well is only140 feet. The equivalent amount of inplaced accomplishment isP80,500.00.

COMPUTATIONS:

FoundationMaterial Cost:l.abor Cost:

3. P23,254.608,500.00

27% OCMVAT

4. P31,654.608,546.74

850.005. P41,051.34

P115,OOO.00/200=575/FTx 80 FT = 80,500.00

It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution that what has beenallegedly awarded to Yap Mabuhay Enterprises, lnc, was the construction of theWater Development at the Municipal Resettlement Project at barangay Benitez,Banga, South Cotabato worth P926,720 and as shown by the Contract ofAgreement (exhibit "A"), the works that are to be done are those mentioned inthe work description, as follows:

t. Inst. Of 1162 UP VC Main Pipes and fittingsa. 25mm x 84 in.m. UPVC Pipesh. 50mm x 1078 in.m. UP VC Pipes

II. Inst. Of Gate Valvesa. One(l) set 75111mh. Six (6) sets 50mm

1/[ Const. ofElevated Steel tanks and accessoriesIV Inst. Of Sub mersihie Elect. PumpV Deepwell Drilling and Dev ...

The Contract and Agreement does not provide the period on how longwill the construction take place up to its completion. Mrs. Cagang however in heraudit and investigation report said that when she conducted said audit andinvestigation in the months of from June 4, 2002 the construction of said projecthad stopped.

xxx xxx xx

The construction of the Water Development Project above-mentioned,the funding of which came from the National Housing Authority. Said fundingswas the subject of the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the NationalHousing Authority and the Second Congressional District of South Cotabato,represented by then Congresswoman Daisy Avance-Fuentes. The fundings was

rr

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-J6-AlR-OOOl (Crirn. Case No. 4S60-B)Page 5 of 15

endorsed to the municipal government of Banga as the project implementor forthe construction of Water System and Drainage System. The summary of theschedule of rates/agency estimates prepared by the NHA which was likewisefound by Ms. Cagang in her audit/investigation are as follows:

"Item No.1.2.3.

DescriptionMobilization/DemobilizationDrainage SystemW;lfer System

AmountMun. Gov 't CounterpartP 837,535.73

962,464.27P1,800,000.00"

As shown by the above assignment of the funds, P962,464.27 was for theconstruction 0 f the Water system, P83 7.535.73 for the construction of thedrainage system (not subject of the cases) or for a total of PI,800,0.00. After theprojects were bidded, the construction of the water system was awarded to YapMabuhay Enterprises, Inc. for a winning bid of P926,nO.00 and the constructionof the drainage system to Glynn Construction and Supply also for a winning bidof P81 0,633.00.7

xxx xxx xxx

When Ms. Cagang conduct her auditlinvestigation, she found theconstruction of the Water System not completed. The construction of the bunkhouse was made using substandard and recycled materials and the construction ofthe canopy had stopped. She further found that the amount of P 139,008.00 whichwas equivalent to fifteen (15%) percent of the amount of the construction of theWater System was paid the contractor as mobilization fee. Also, she foundaccused, Jerorne Rendon had recommended a progress payment for an alleged52.88% work accomplishment on April 4, 200 \ for which the amount ofP286,000.00 was paid the contractor and on June 6, 200 I, the alleged 82.86%work accomplishment and as a result thereof the amount of P226,305.00 waspaid the contractor making the grand total of the amount paid to the contractor inthe amount of P651,3 73 .00. Said recommendations of the accused for whichcorresponding amounts were paid the contractor were not allegedly based uponthe actual progress of the construction of the project as shown by pictures markedas exhibit "P," "P-\" and "P-2". Accused, Jerorne Rendon likewise altered andrevised the specifications of the plan for the construction of the project as foundby Technical Auditors, Engr. Claro A. Fernando, State Auditor Il and Engr.Rolando P. Manila, Senior Technical Audit Specialist (exhibit "N-4" and "N-5"mentioned above) 8 .

On 4 November 2009, plaintiff rested its case with the filing of itsformal offer of evidence." In an Order dated 14 April 2010,10 the Courtadmitted all its documentary exhibits, save for Exh. "P ," for lack of properidentification during trial.

Specific to Crim. Case No. 4560-B, appellant testified in hisdefense.11 The essence of his testimony, as found by the trial court, may besummarized as follows:

7 Joint Decision, p. 17; Rol!o, p. 60.8 Id., p. 18; Rollo, p. 61.9 Records, Vol. 1, SB-16-A'R-000 I, pp. 144-155.\0 Id., p. 178. t11 TSN, 19 February 20 I0, 5 March 20 I0, and 17 January 2011.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-A/R-000I (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)Page 6 of 15

Accused, Jerome Rendon admitted the fact that he revised and altered theplan for the construction of the Water System. He altered it for allegedly thematerials that are to be used in the construction are not available locally or evenin General Santos City. His revision of the plan was not however approved byNHA and did not ask its approval. He likewise admitted to have recommendedon April 4, 200 I a 52.88% work completion for which the total amountP651,373.40 including mobilization fee were paid the contractor.

Said accused however denied to have participated in the award of theproject to the contractor including the constructions of the bunk house and thecanopy He also did not have any hand in the payment of the amount for theconstruction of the bunk house. Neither did he order the stoppage of theconstruction of the Water System nor the canopy. The construction worksaccording to him probably stopped after he was relieved on July I, 2001 byMayor Isidro J . .Janita through a memorandum (exhibit "6") received by him onid d )7sal ay."

On 16 February 2011, appellant rested his case with the filing of hisformal offer of evidence.13 All his documentary exhibits were admitted, savefor Exh. "11," which according to the court a quo "does not exist in the listof exhibits offered.,,14

Upon the evidence submitted by the parties, the court a quo renderedthe assailed Joint Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises all considered, the court finds the evidence ofthe prosecution in Criminal Cases Nos. 4561 and 4562-B to be insufficient tohold the accused criminally responsible as they are charged.

Accordingly, accused, Jerome Rendon and Glenda Declasin are hereby"ACQUITTED" and the bail bonds posted earlier for their provisional libertyare hereby ordered cancelled and returned to their bondsmen.

In Criminal Case No. 4560-B, the court finds the evidence (sic) of theprosecution as against accused, Allan Yaphockun Iikewise insufficient andwanting to criminally declare him responsible as he is charged. Said accused isalso hereby "ACQUITTED" and the bail bond posted for his provisional libertyis likewise cancelled and returned to his bondsman.

The court however, finds the evidence of the prosecution againstaccused, Jerome Rendon sufficient to hold him criminally responsible as he ischarged.

Consequently, accused Jerome Rendon Y Bangonon is found"GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3( e) of R.A. 3019 andis hereby sentenced to undergo the penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARSand ONE (I) rvl0NTH, the minimum penalty provided by law which the court

12 Joint Decision, p. 19; Rollo, p. 62.IJ Records, Vol.l, SB-16-A/R-OOOl, pp. 215-219. t14 Order dated 16 March 201 I.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-A/R-000l (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)Page 7 of 15

believes to be commensurate to the offense he committed. He IS likewisedisqualified from holding public office perpetually.

SO ORDERED. IS

It is from the said judgment that accused has interposed the presentappeal based on the following assignment of errors:

The Regional Trial Court Branch 26 of Surallah, South Cotabatoerred in finding the Accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonabledoubt of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for the followingacts:

1. He caused the revision and alteration of the specificationfor the construction of the Water Development at theMunicipal Resettlement Project Plan without the approvalof the NHA; and

2. Ile recommended the payment of up to 82.6% workcompletion when he pretty well know that the same was notcorrect, such was baseless and cause damage to the(~ 16rovernment;

Appellant essentially argues that: (i) Sec. 2 of Presidential Decree(P.D.) No. 1594 allows revisions in the specifications of governmentinfrastructure proj ects; 17 and (ii) he merely recommended the payment offunds correlative to the completion of the project as per 82.6%accomplishment, thus it should be government officials who ultimatelyapproved the payment that should be held accountable. 18

On the other hand, the appellee argues that the trial court did not err infinding appellant gu ilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019.

RULING OF THE COURT

Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 provides:Section .3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts

or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, thefollowing shall constitute COITUptpractices of any public officer and arehereby declared la be unlawful: r

--------.- ..--15 Rollo, pp. 65-66.16 Brieffor the Accused-Appellant dated 28 May 2017, pp. 3-4; Rol/o, pp. 94-95.17 Id, pp. 10-13; Rollo, pp. 101-104.18 [d., pp. 13-15; Rollo, pp. 104-106.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-AlR-000l (Crirn. Case No. 4560-B)Page 8 of 15

xxx xxx xxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including theGovernment, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,advantage or preference in the discharge of his officialadministrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provisionshall apply to officers and employees of offices or governmentcorporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or otherconcess Ions.

The essential elements of the said crime are as follows:

1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,judicial or official functions;

2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, orinexcusable negligence; and,

3. That his action caused undue lnJury to any party, including thegovernment, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. 19

First Element

There is no question that appellant was a public officer at the time ofthe incident in question, and that his employment as the Municipal Engineerof the Municipality of Banga directly enabled him to commit the offense ascharged.

Second Element

Appellant is accused of having acted with evident bad faith, which hasbeen defined by the Supreme Court as follows:20 '

The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 30] 9 may be committedin three ways, i. e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or grossinexcusable' negligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with theprohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is enough toconvict."

--------.-.--19 Consigna v. People, G.R . .\10.175750-51,2 Apri12014; Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17,25 October 2004, citing Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 84571,2 October 1989.

20 Sison v. People, G.R. Nos, 170339, 170398-403,9 March 20 10." Fonacier v Sandiganbayan, G, R. No. 50691,5 December 19r

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-A/R-OOOl (Crirn, Case No. 4560-B)Page 9 of 15

Explaining what "partiality," "bad faith" and "gross negligence"mean, we held:

xxx "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment ornegligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moralobliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of swornduty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes ofthe nature offraud.,,22 xxx

Additionally, Uriarte v. People23 instructs that "evident bad faith" isapparent when there is a "palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonestpurpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perversemotive or ill will or/or other ulterior purposes."

...

In this case. appellant does not contest the findings of the court a quothat he effectively caused the change in the specifications and materials forthe Water Development project. Neither does he contest that, as a MunicipalEngineer, and precisely in the performance of his functions as such, herecommended payment to the contractor for an 82.86% completion rate.Rather, appellant restates that Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1594 allows such changesto be made, and That he merely recommended payment to the contractor,whereas the municipality's treasurer and mayor were the ones whoultimately caused .he release of payment for the project.

Appellant's assertions have no merit.

Sec. 2 ofP.D. No. 1594 provides:

Section 2. Detailed Engineering. No bidding and/or award of contract for aconstruction pr: ~icct shall be made unless the detai led engineering investigations,surveys, and designs for the project have been su fficiently carried out inaccordance with the standards and specifications to be established under the rulesand regulations to be promulgated pursuant to Section 12 of this Decree so as tominimize quam itv and cost overruns and underruns, change orders and extrawork orders, and unless the detailed engineering documents have been approvedby the Minister of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, theMinister of Pubic Highways, of the Minister of Energy, as the case may be.

A simple reading of the text shows that the law pertains to a detailedengineering plan and the basic requirements for the same. It does not refer toproject implementation, but indicates the need for such a plan prior to

r--------.- ...--22 Id.23 G.R. No. 169251,20 December 2006.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-A/R-000l (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)Page 10 of 15

bidding and award of a contract. This controversy, however, concernsproject implementation.

Variation orders - which consist of change orders, extra work orders,and supplemental contracts - are not governed by Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1594,but Sec. 924 thereof. For further clarification, the Implementing Rules andRegulations (IRR) of the said law specifically covers variation orders,accordingl y:

Cl I VARIATION ORDERS - CHANGE ORDER/EXTRA WORKORDER/SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT

I. VAR1ATlON ORDERS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE CONCERNEDAGENCY/OJi'FICE/CORPORATION TO COVER ANY increase/decrease inquantities, INCLUDING THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW WORK ITEMSTHAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT orreclassification of WORK items THAT ARE EITHER DUE to change ofplans, design or alignment to suit actual field conditions RESULTING I IN'disparity between the preconstruction plans used for purposes of bidding and the"as staked plans" or construction drawings prepared after a joint survey by thecontract and the government after the award of the contract. THEADDITIONIDELETION OF WORKS SHOULD BE WITHIN THEGENERAL SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AS BID AND AWARDED. AVARIATION ORDER MAY EITHER BE IN THE FORM OF A CHANGEORDER, EXTRA WORK ORDER OR A SUPPLEMENTALAGREEMENT.

2. A Change Order may be issued by the implementing official TOCOVER ANY INCREASE/DECREASE IN QUANTITIES OF ORIGINALWORK ITEMS IN THE CONTRACT after the same has been FOUND TOSTIUCTLY COMPLY WITH SECTION CI-l-l AND approved by theappropriate official if the amount of the change order is within the limits of theformer's authority to approve original contracts and under the followingconditions:

a. Where the aggregate cost of Change Order(s) is limited to 25% ofthe ESCALATED original contract cost provided that no major payitem (i.e., pay item which represents at least 20% of total estimatedcost of the contract) shall be increase by more than 100% of itsoriginal cost. All Change Orders shall be subject to price adjustmentin accordance with duly approved guidelines.

b. Where there is decrease OR INCREASE in ORIGINAL workITEMS UNDER THE CONTRACT due to NECESSARYdeletion/ADDITION of work items or sections of the project.

________ o· _

24 Which provides: "Section 9. Change Order and Extra Work Order. A change order or extra work ordermay be issued only for works necessary for the completion of the project and, therefore, shall be within thegeneral scope of the contract as bidded and awarded. All change orders and extra work orders shall besubject to the approval of the Minister of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, the Ministerof Public Highway" or the Minister of Energy, as the CO" may be." (

DECISION

People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-A/R-OOOI (Crirn. Case No. 4560-B)Page 11 of 15

c. W here there is damage to structure and/or destruction of finishedworl: in any section of the. project due to force majeure or causesbevond the control of man.

xxx xxx xxx

4. An EXITa Work Order may be issued by the implementing official TOCOVER THI: INTRODUCTION OF NEW WORK ITEMS after the samehas been souxn TO STlUCTLY COMPLY WITH SECTION Cl 1-1 ANDapproved by the appropriate official if the amount of the Extra Work Order iswithin the limits of the former's authority to approve original contracts and underthe following conditions:

a. Where there are additional works needed and necessary for thecompletion improvement or protection of the project which were notinc luded as items of work in the original contract.

b. Where there are subsurface or latent physical conditions at the sitedif.ering materially from those indicated in the contract.

c. Where there are unknown physical conditions at the site of an1II111sllalnature differing materially from those ordinarily encounteredand generally recognized as inherent in the work or characterprovided for in the contract.

d. Where there are duly approved construction drawing or anyinstruction issued by the implementing office/agency during the termof contract which involve extra cost.

5. Change Orders or Extra Work Orders may be issued on a contract upon theapproval of competent authorities provided that the cumulative amount of suchChange Orders or Extra Work Orders does not exceed the limits of the former'sauthority to approve original contracts.

xxx xxx xxx

7. Any Variation Order (Change Order, Extra Work Order ORSUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT) shall be subject to the escalation formulaused to adjust tile original contract price less the cost of mobil ization. In claimingfor any Variation Order, the contractor shall, within seven (7) calendar days aftersuch work has heen commenced or after the circumstances leading to suchcondition(s) leading to the extra cost, and within 28 calendar days deliver awritten communication giving full and detailed particulars of any extra work costin order that it nay be investigated in time. Failure to provide such notice in thetime stipulated shall constitute a waiver by the contract for any claim. Thepreparation and submission of Change Orders, Extra Work Orders orSupplemental Agreements are as follows:

a. If the project Engineer believes that a Change Order, Extra WorkOrder 01 Supplemental Agreement should be issued, he shall prepare theproposed Order or Supplemental Agreement accompanied with thenotice: submitted by the contractor, the plans therefor, his computationsas to the quantities of the additional works involved per item indicatingthe specific stations where such works are needed, the date of hisinspections and investigations thereon, and the log book thereof, and adetailed estimate of the unit cost of such items of work, together withhis justifications for the need of such Change Order, Extra Work Orderor Supplemental Agreement, and shall submit the same to the RegionalDirector of office/agency/corporation concerned. r

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-NR-000I (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)Page 12 of 15 .

b. The Regional Director concerned, upon receipt of the proposedChange Order, Extra Work Order or Supplemental Agreement shallirnmed iately instruct the techn ical staff of the Region to conduct an on-the-spot investigation to verify the need for the work to be prosecuted.A report of such verification shall be submitted directly to RegionalDirector concerned.

c. The Regional Director concerned after being satisfied that suchChange Order, Extra Work Order or Supplemental Agreement isjustified and necessary, shall review the estimated quantities and pricesand forward the proposal with the supporting documentation to the headof office/agency/corporation for consideration.

d. If, after review of the plans, quantities and estimated unit cost ofthe items of work involved, the proper office/agency/corporationcommittee empowered to review and evaluate Change Order, ExtraWork Order or Supplemental Agreements recommends approvalthereof the head of office//agency/corporation, believe the ChangeOrder, Extra Work Order or Supplemental Agreement to be in order,shall approve the same. The limits of approving authority for anyindividual, and the aggregate of, Change Orders, Extra Work Orders orSupplemental Agreements for any project of the head ofoffice/agency/corporation shall not be greater than those granted for anoriginal project.

e. THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE PROCESSING OFVARIATION ORDERS FROM THE PREPARATION UP TOTHE APPROVAL BY THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCYCONCERNED SHALL NOT EXCEED THIRTY (30) CALENDARDAYS.'s

The law and IRR are clear-cut as to the process by which variationorders may be legally approved. They likewise unmistakably provide thatvariations in materials pertain to increase or decrease in quantity not quality- as in this case - unless a change in field conditions justifies additionalwork items to be accomplished. /

Thus, appellant's reasoning that he caused the variation in the qualityof the materials used due to lack of availability of the items specified in thecontract has no merit, since he also consciously did not follow the process asdefined by the law for variation orders.

As a last-ditch effort, he insists that the mayor executed an affidavitstating conformity to his actions. However, the said document lacksevidentiary value, and even if it were properly presented and identified bythe affiant, the fact remains that the law was still transgressed.

r---------_._--25 Emphases in the original.

DECISION

People of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-A/R-000l (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)Page 13 of15

In light ofthese circumstances, the element of evident bad faith wassufficiently established by the prosecution. Appellant's acts in assenting tothe change in quality of the materials, and in consciously disobeying theprocess before any work done by the contractor as per the said variation waspaid for, were in violation ofP.D. No. 1594 and its IRR. This is accentuatedby the fact that he declared that the changes are correct, and that herecommended that the contractor be paid despite failing to complete thecorresponding amount of work thereto.

Third Element

There are 1'1\/0 modes of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: (1)by causing undue injury to a private individual or the Government, or (2) bygiving unwarranted benefits to another. As noted earlier, appellant is beingcharged under the f rst mode.

Appellant's argument that damage to the government caused bypayment to the contractor is attributable to officials other than himself istenuous at best. It is not denied that his very mandate as Municipal Engineeris to make sure that the infrastructure project. was being carried outaccording to engineering standards and contractual quality specifications. Itis well within his functions to check and certify whether a contractor's claimof a certain percentage of project completion is correct; it is not within themandate or experti se of the municipal treasurer and municipal mayor toassess the same. By way of defense, he in fact claims that his functions asmunicipal engineer are merely ceremonial, such that his recommendation forpayment as per project accomplishment in fact has no bearing. This istantamount to saying; that his public office is a mere surplusage. There is noneed to further discuss this baseless and strained defense.

As found by the government's auditing team, there was a declarationthat 82.86% of the project was completed, although the contractor was onlyable to finish, at most, 50% of its contractual obligations. But even this is

/ subject to further scrutiny, especially considering that the materials used forthe Water Development project were all below the agreed upon engineeringand contractual specifications, and that after payment, the contractor nolonger commenced further work on the project.

On this note, the trial court committed no error in finding thatappellant's actions cumulatively caused damage to the government in theamount ofPhp 65 I)73.00. (

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-AlR-000l (Crim, Case No. 4560-B)Page 14 of 15

Considering the attending circumstances and that the application ofthe indeterminate sentence law would not be beneficial to appellant, the trialcourt correctly meted the penalty of six years and one (1) month andperpetual disquali fication from public office.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the 26 August 2015 JointDecision of the Regional Trial Court of Surallah, South' Cotabato (Branch26) is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. ...

BA YA . JACINTOAs ociate Justice

WECONCUR:

Associate JusticeChairperson

RE~.aCRUZ/ Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached inconsultation with the Justices of the Court's Division.

~~.

Associate JusticeChairperson, Fourth Division

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Jerome B. RendonSB-16-A/R-000l (Crim. Case No. 4560-B)Page 15 of 15

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairperson's Attestation, l certify that the conclusions in the aboveDecision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned tothe writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

"l-AlltllV ustice