820 Phil. 1031
PERALTA, J.:
The present petition stemmed from the controversy involving the purchase of helicopter units by the Philippine National Police sometime in 2009. P/Dir. George Piano (herein respondent), former Director for Logistics of the PNP, is among several named respondents in the complaint filed by the Field Investigation Office (herein petitioner FIO) before the Office of the Ombudsman.On May 30, 2012, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered a Joint Resolution,[4] the decretal portion of which pertinently reads:
Complainant alleged that sometime in 2009, the PNP, with an approved budget for the contract of One Hundred Five Million Pesos (P105,000,000.00), purchased from Manila Aerospace Products Trading Corporation (MAPTRA Corporation) one (1) fully-equipped Robinson R44 Raven II Light Police Operational Helicopter (LPOH) for Forty-Two Million Three Hundred Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Thirteen Pesos and 101100 (P42,312,913.10) and two (2) standard Robinson R44 Raven I LPOHs for Sixty-Two Million Six Hundred Seventy-Two Thousand Eighty Six Pesos and 90/100. (P62,672,086.90), for a total amount of One Hundred Four Million Nine Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Pesos (P104,985,000.00). However, despite the requirements prescribed by the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) in its Resolution No. 2008-260 and the agreement of the parties as stated in the Supply Contract dated July 23, 2009, that all three LPOHs be brand new, MAPTRA Corporation delivered only one brand new Robinson Raven II LPOH to the PNP, while the two (2) standard Robinson Raven I LPOHs it delivered were actually pre-owned by former First Gentleman, Atty. Jose Miguel "Mike" Arroyo, thereby causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to certain individuals in the amount of more or less Thirty-Four Million Pesos (P34,000,000.00). Complainant further alleged that the anomaly could not have been possible without the indispensable cooperation and mutual help of NAPOLCOM and PNP officials and personnel, herein respondent included.
Specifically, with respect to respondent, petitioner FIO averred that in Inspection and Acceptance Committee (IAC) Resolution No. T2009-045 (dated 11 November 2009)), respondent, along with three (3) of his co-respondents in the complaint, stated that they had conducted an inspection and evaluation of the two standard LPOHs delivered by MAPTRA and recommended the acceptance of said items to General Jesus Verzosa, although only respondent Paatan was present during the inspection on 24 September 2009.
In his Counter - Affidavit, [respondent], in sum, averred that his participation in the procurement of the LPOHs went only as far as determining whether the helicopters were delivered in the correct quantities and whether they conform to NAPOLCOM-PNP specifications based on the report of his duly-appointed representative and technical personnel from the inspection team, the Directorate for Research and Development (DRD), and the representative PNP end-user Special Action Force (SAF) Unit. Since helicopters do not form part of ordinary and regular logistic supplies to the PNP, [respondent] had to direct and rely upon a team of inspectors who conducted the technical and meticulous examination of the two helicopters that were delivered. The result of the inspection was embodied in WTCD Report No. T-2009-04A dated 14 October 2009 which was forwarded to [respondent] through a Memorandum issued by P/Dir. Ronald Roderos, stating that the two units of Robinson R44 Raven helicopters that were delivered and inspected conformed with the NAPOLCOM-approved PNP specifications as specified in the Purchase Order. [Respondent] alleged that he merely relied on said WTCD Report and Memorandum when he signed and issued IAC Resolution No. T-2009-045 and he had no reason to doubt the authenticity or reliability of said documents.
Pertinent to (respondent's] involvement in the alleged anomalous helicopter purchase are the following factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman Special Investigating Panel:
x x x
42. On September 24, 2009, MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship delivered two (2) units of R44 Standard Light Police Operational Helicopters as follows: RP 4357 with Serial No. 1374 manufactured on November 19, 2003, with a flying time of 536.3 hours; and RP 4250 with Serial Number 1372 manufactured on October 22, 2003, with a flying time of 498.9 hours. The price of each helicopter was P31,336,043.45 or the total price of P62,672,086.90.
43. In the PNP, there is a Division called the Weapons Tactics and Communications Division (WTCD) which is under the Directorate for Research and Development (DRD). At the time material to the case, WTCD was headed by respondent Garcia while the DRD was headed by respondent Roderos.
44. In connection with the delivery of two (2) Standard R44 Raven 1 Helicopters on September 24, 2009, WTCD Report No. T-2009-04-A was issued. This report was prepared by members of the DRD and a composite team of inspectors from other offices of the PNP, specifically the Logistics Support Services, Special Action Force-Air Unit and the Directorate for Logistics. The signatories to the report and their respective positions are:
x x x
All the above signatories are respondents in these criminal and administrative cases.
45. The team of inspectors was tasked to inspect and examine the delivered helicopters to see if they conformed to the specifications of the PNP. Only after it is found that the helicopters delivered met the specifications could the helicopters be formally accepted by the PNP. The task of accepting the procured helicopters belonged to the Inspection and Acceptance Committee (IAC).
46. In its WTCD Report No. T-2009-04-A, the team of inspectors stated that the method of inspection was through "Visual and Functional" and that the inspection was made on September 24, 2009 at Hangar 10 of Manila Domestic Airport, Pasay City. The team also made a table whereby the required specifications of the helicopters are shown in the first column, the specifications of the helicopters actually delivered on the second column and the corresponding remarks whether the specifications were met or not on the third and last column. x x x(table omitted)
47. x x x the team reported that for most of the specifications, the delivered helicopters were "Conforming" to the specifications, However, it can also be readily seen that with respect to the 3-hour endurance requirement, the team stated on the second column that there was "no available data" and with respect to the third column there was no entry at all.
48. Likewise, the NAPOLCOM specification was for air-conditioned helicopters and the team stated in their report that the units delivered were not air-conditioned. The inspection team also stated "Standard helicopter" in the Remarks column.
49. In a Memorandum dated October 16, 2009, respondent Roderos stated, among others, that, "The result of inspection, as shown in WTCD Report No. T2009-04A dated October 14, 2009 x x x indicated that the two (2) units of Robinson R44 Raven I conformed with the NAPOLCOM approved specifications for Light Police Operational Helicopter as specified in the Purchase Order. x x x
50. On November 9, 2009, the NHQ-BAC issued Resolution No. 2009-70, recommending the amendment of the Supply Contract between the PNP and MAPTRA (sole proprietorship) to allow partial payment for partial delivery provided the two (2) standard Light Police Operational Helicopters shall be delivered within the delivery period of sixty (60) calendar days and provided further that the claim for partial payment shall be equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of the total contract price.
51. Upon the approval of NHQ-BAC Resolution No. 2009-70 by respondent Verzosa, Disbursement Voucher PNPNDV#O (M) 101109-019 dated November 10, 2009 was processed, to pay for the partial delivery of Standard Light Police Operational Helicopter in the amount of P52,492,500.00 representing fifty percent of the total contract price of P104,985,000.00. Deducting the VAT and Expanded Withholding Tax, the net amount was P49,680,401.80. Respondent Piano certified therein that "Expenses/advance necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision." Respondent Versoza approved the payment.
52. On November 11, 2009, the PNP Inspection and Acceptance Committee issued Resolution No. IAC-09-045. x x x
x x x
53. MAPTRA Corporation was thereafter paid by the PNP the amount of P49,680,401.80 through Land Bank of the Philippines Check No. 454707 dated December 16, 2009.[3]
WHEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows:The Ombudsman found respondent liable for serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in signing Resolution No. IAC-09-045 stating that the helicopters delivered conformed to the approved NAPOLCOM technical specifications despite the fact that as can be readily seen in WTCD Report No. T-2009-04A, there was no compliance with the air-conditioning requirement and there was no entry at all with respect to the endurance requirement; that even with the incomplete entries in the WTCD Report, respondent, as Chairman of the IAC, chose to adopt in toto the said report instead of probing or taking further action to ascertain and ensure that the interest of the government was being protected; and that had he and the IAC members done so, they can readily have confirmed that the delivered helicopters did not conform to the required specifications; that as IAC Chairman, he was under legal obligation to make an honest and proper inspection to see to it that the deliveries are consistent with the interest of the government as spelled out in paragraph 3-10, Chapter 3 of the PNP Procurement Manual.
OMB-C-C-11-0758-L (CRIMINAL CASE)
x x x x
OMB C-A-11-0758-L (ADMINISTRATIVE CASE)
Respondents PIDir. Leocadio Salva Cruz Santiago, Jr., PISupt. Errnilando Villafuerte, PISupt. Roman E. Loreto, P/C Supt. Herold G. Ubalde, P/C Supt. Luis Luarca Saligumba, P/S Supt. Job Nolan D. Antonio, P/Dir. George Quinto Piano, P/S Supt. Edgar B. Paatan, P/S Supt. Mansue Nery Lukban, P/C Insp. Maria Josefina Vidal Recometa, P/S Supt. Claudio DS Gaspar, Jr., SPO3 Ma. Linda A. Padojinog, PO3 Avensuel G. Dy and NUP Ruben S. Gongona are hereby found GUILTY of Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and are thus meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, including the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office, pursuant to the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Resolution No. 991936, as amended).
x x x x
Let a copy of this Joint Resolution be furnished the Secretary of the Department of [the] Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), for the implementation of the penalties imposed in OMB-C-A-11-0758 L.[5]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner P/Dir. George Quinto Piano is EXONERATED from the administrative charges against him in OMB-C-A-11-0758-L. Accordingly, his retirement benefits are ordered released, unless withheld for some other lawful reason, and subject to the usual clearances.[7]The CA found that the only evidence on respondent's alleged involvement in the conspiracy to defraud the PNP (by concealing the actual condition of the helicopters procured by it) was Resolution No. IAC-09-045 which respondent signed as Chairman of the IAC. However, such document is insufficient to prove the administrative charges against him. In signing the Resolution, respondent relied on WTCD Report No. T-2009-04A which emanated from the very composite team that conducted the technical inspection of the subject helicopters; and that DRD Director Roderos's Memorandum attested to the veracity of the said Report and declared that the LPOHs passed the criteria set by the PNP; that respondent, not being an expert on helicopter specifications and technical inspection, had no recourse but to rely on the assurance and recommendations from the DRD Director, insofar as the interpretation of the inspection report is concerned. The CA cited the case of Arias v. Sandiganbayan,[8] where We declared that "all heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations"; that while the Arias doctrine is not absolute, such as when there exists an exceptional or additional circumstance which could have prodded the public official to exercise a higher degree of circumspection and go beyond what his subordinates had prepared or recommended, however, the CA found no such exceptional or additional circumstance present in this case.
Section 3. Serious Dishonesty. - The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act would constitute the offense of Serious Dishonesty:On the other hand, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service deals with a demeanor of a public officer which "tarnished the image and integrity of his public office."[13]
a. The dishonest act causes serious damage and grave prejudice to the government.
b. The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the dishonest act.
c. Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves property, accountable forms or money for which he is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption.
d. The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of then respondent.
e. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment.
f. The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions.
g. The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination, irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets.
h. Other analogous circumstances.
WHEREAS, in accordance with paragraphs 3-10, Chapter 3 of the NAPOLCOM-approved PNP Procurement Manual entitled Inspection and Acceptance Committee, it is stated that the Committee must properly inspect all deliveries of the PNP and must be consistent with interest of the government.The WTCD Report[17] referred to in the Resolution states the following findings, to wit:
x x x x
WHEREAS, after inspection and evaluation was conducted, the Committee found the said items to be conforming to the approved NAPOLCOM specifications and passed the acceptance criteria as submitted by DRD on WTCD Report No. T-2009-04-A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the above-mentioned items be accepted for use of the PNP.[16]
PNP SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIGHT POLICE OPERATIONAL HELICOPTERS | SPECIFICATIONS OF ROBINSON R44 RAVEN I HELICOPTER | REMARKS |
Power Plant: Piston | Piston-type | Conforming |
Power Rating: 200 hp (minimum) | 225 | Conforming |
Speed: 100 knots (minimum) | 113 knots | Conforming |
Range: 300 miles (minimum) | 400 miles | Conforming |
Endurance: 3 Hours (minimum) | No available data | |
Service Ceiling (Height Capability): 14,000 feet (maximum) | 14,000 feet | Conforming |
T/O Gross Weight: 2,600 lbs. (maximum) | 2,400 lbs. | Conforming |
Seating Capacity: 1 pilot + 3 pax (maximum) | 1 pilot + 3 passengers | Conforming |
Ventilating System: Air-conditioned | Not airconditioned | Standard Helicopter |
Aircraft Instruments: Standard to include Directional Gyro Above Horizon with Slip Skid Indicator and Vertical Compass | Equipped with Directional Gyro Above Horizon with Slip Skid Indicator and Vertical Compass | Conforming |
Color and Markings: White with appropriate markings specified in NAPOLCOM Res. No. 99-002 dated January 5, 1999 (Approving the Standard Color and Markings for PNP Motor Vehicles, Seacraft and Aircraft) | White with appropriate markings specified in NAPOLCOM Res. No. 99-002 | Conforming |
Warranty: The supplier warrants any defect in material and workmanship within the most advantageous terms and conditions in favor of the government. | The Supplier will warrant any defect in material and workmanship within the most advantageous terms and conditions in favor of the government for two (2) years | Indicated in the Contract (To include time-change parts as suggested by DRD Test and Evaluation Board) |
Requirements: | ||
Maintenance Manual Operation Manual | Provided Provided | Conforming Conforming[18] |