Os, wot Republic of the Philippines 4 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Gi Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City 1104 GUILLERMO L. SYLIANTENG, JR. Complainant, OMB-C-C-15-0438 -verstis- For: Malversation of Public Funds or Property, Plunder, Violation of Section 3(e) and 4(b) of RA No. 3019," as amended, RA No. 9184,? and RA No. 8556° EMMAN' » ANDAYA (Salary Grade 28) Acting Director SYLVIA C. BANDA (Salary Grade 24) Chief, Administrative Division MA. GRACIA L. ENRIQUEZ (Salary Grade 24) Production Planning and Control Officer V BENEDICTO M. CABRAL (Salary Grade 24) Chief, Printing Operations NAPOLEON G. GONZALES (Salary Grade 22) Assistant Chief, Printing Operations RUBEN A. DANCEL (Salary Grade 22) Production Planning and Control Officer IV BUENAVENTURA G. GONZALES, JR. Assistant Chief, Printing Operations RAUL S. NAGRAMPA Acting Assistant Director - AllofNational Printing Office NILDA C. LAPUZ State Auditor V Commission on Audit Public Respondents; and ‘TEOFREDO L. CO JIMMY C.CO - Both of Topbest Printing Office Private Respondents. x ' Republic Act (RA No.) 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 2 Government Procurement Reform Act, » Financing Company Act of 1998.Page 2 0f 17 JOINT RESOLUTION ‘An GUILLERMO L. SYLIANTENG, JR. Complainant, OMB-C-A-15-0412 -versus-_ For: Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct EMMANUEL C. ANDAYA (Salary Grade 28) Acting Director SYLVIA C. BANDA (Salary Grade 24) Chief, Administrative Division MA. GRACIA L. ENRIQUEZ (Salary Grade 24) Production Planning and Control Officer V BENEDICTO M. CABRAL (Salary Grade 24) Chief, Printing Operations NAPOLEON G. GONZALES(Salary Grade 22) Assistant Chief, Printing Operations RUBEN A. DANCEL (Salary Grade 22) Production Planning and Control Officer IV. BUENAVENTURA G. GONZALES, JR. Assistant Chief, Printing Operations RAUL S. NAGRAMPA Acting Assistant Director - All of National Printing Office NILDA C. LAPUZ State Auditor V Commission on Audit Respondents. JOINT RESOLUTION This pertains to the Complaint filed on October 21, 2015 by Guillermo L. Sylianteng, Jr, (complainant), for violation of Section 3(e) and 4(b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019, as amended, RA No. 9184, RA No. 8556, and Malversation and Plunder, arising from the contéact of lease of printing “ Records, Criminal Case Folder, pp. 3-17; and Administrative Case Folder, p. 3-17,SAAS YSERA Page 3of 17 SORT pea JOINT RESOLUTION eared hoe Cor oF THe ORM G. Svliameng, Jr, v. E. Andava. 4 OMB-C-C-15-0438 and OMB-C: equipment and machinery between National Printing Office (NPO) and on etal. 15-0412 “ Topbest Printing Corporation (Topbest), which was allegedly attended by irregularities committed by the following: 1. Public respondents Emmanuel C, Andaya (Andaya), Acting Director, Raul S. Nagrampa (Nagrampa), Acting Assistant Director, Sylvia C. Banda (Banda), Chief, Administrative Division, Ma. Garcia L Enriquez (Enriquez), Production Planning and Control Officer V, Benedicto M. Cabral (Cabral), Chief, Printing Operations, Ruben A. Dancel (Dancel), Production Planning and Control Officer IV, Buenaventura G. Gonzales, Jr. (Buenaventura), Assistant Chief, Printing Operations, all officials of NPO; and Nilda C. Lapuz (Lapuz), State Auditor V of the Commission of Audit (COA); and 2. Private respondents Teofredo L. Co (Teofredo), and Jimmy Co (Jimmy), owners of Topbest. Public respondents are also administratively charged with Dishonest and Grave Misconduct. Background The NPO awarded three contracts of lease of printing equipment and machinery to Topbest, to wit: Date of Notice of Award Contract Amount (Php) | ——s March7,2013" =—~—~—~—S«Y~S*«*«*«S «ASOD March 4, 2014" 59,000,000.00 r ~ March 24, 20157 T '50,000,000.00 Total Amount: Php168,450,000.00 | 5 Records, Criminal Case Folder, p. 19; and Administrative Case Folder, p. 19, $ Id,, Criminal Case Folder, p. 19; and Administrative Case Folder, p. 342. 7 4d.. Criminal Case Folder, p.22; and Administrative Case Folder, p, 22.EE ee Page dof } JOINT RESOL! HON G_Swlianteng, Jr vB, Araya ev al OMP-C-CASO08 td OMEC ASANTE Complaint Complainant alleges respondent-NPO officials allowed the following irregulariti 1. Topbest is not qualified to carry out the contracts: It is not an authorized financial company that can enter into financial lease contracts as shown by (1) its Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Registration® and (2) Business Permit.” In both documents, Topbest has no authority to engage in the business of leasing out its printers. It has no track record in said business, and the value of its properties and printers is grossly less than the value of the contracts; and 2. The contracts were unfunded. There were no funds appropriated for the contracts. Instead, the contracts were paid out of NPO's revolving fund. In the Notices'” of Awards of the contracts which respondents registered in the PhilGeps, respondents falsely stated that the contracts would be funded by the General Appropriation Act (GAA) for years 2013 to 2015. Complainant also alleges that Lapuz conspired with respondent-NPO officials when she refused to disallow, through post-audit, the payment to Topbest. Further, Teofredo and Jimmy Co of Topbest conspired with their co- respondents by allowing and benefitting from said irregularities. They also violated RA No. 8556 when they failed to register Topbest’s machineries with the Register of Deeds.!' 514. Criminal Case Folder, pp. 23-34; and Administrative Case Folder, pp. 23-24 imi Case Foe, p38: and Admnistative Case Foe, p33. iminal Case Folder, p. 82: and Administrative Case Fol oH Clin P. trative Case Folder, p. 82.Page Sof 17 JOINT RESOLUTION G Sylinweng, Je. v.E Avwlaya, eta OMB-C-C-1S-0138 and OMB-C-AcI 0012, cennPea ne copfor re orci Counter-Affidavit In their respective Counter-Affidavits, Andaya,? —Lapuz,!? Buenaventura,'* Nagrampa,'5 Banda, Cabral and Enriquez,'® aver that: 1. Topbest is an eligible bidder that passed both the preliminary examination and the post-qualification of bids. The SEC Registration and Business Permit for finan ng companies were not required from Topbest, because contrary (o the claims of the complainant, Topbest (a) was not primarily organized for the purpose of extending credit facilities, or financial leasing of its properties; (b) is nota “financing company” ased on the definition provided by RA No. 8556;"” and (c) is not engaged in financial leases as defined in Section 3(4) of RA No. 8556.! 2. The Articles of Incorporation of Topbest provides as its secofidary purpose, and consistent with the sound-business judgment principle, “to invest and deal with the money and property of the corporation in such manner as may from time to time be considered wise or expedient for the advancement of business.” Criminal Case Folder, pp. 146-160, and Admit dated December 10, 2015 of Andaya "Criminal Case Folder, pp. 100-111, and Adininstrative Case Folder, pp. 98-109: Counter- Affidavit dated December 1, 2015 of Lapuz. "Criminal Case Folder, pp. 120-123, and Administrative Case Folder, pp. 118-121: Counter-Atfidavit dated December 4, 2015 of Buenaventura, ‘Criminal Case Folder, pp. 277-284, and Administrative Case Folder, pp. 196-203: Counter-A.id dated December 28, 2015 of Nagrampa; "Criminal Case Folder, pp, 129-139, and Administrative Case Folder, pp. 122-131: Counter-AMfidavit dated December 10,2015 of Banda, Cabral and Enriquez. 2 Seton 3 (2) of RA No. 8556 (Financing Company Ac of 1998) defines “Financing companies 9s xxx corporations, except banks, ivesnents houses, savings and lan associa insurance companies, cooperatives, and other nc Lnstnaions organized or operating under ater special laws, which are primavily organized forthe purpose of extening edt feces o consumes arto industria, commercial or agricul enterprises, by direct lending o by iscnoting, factoring commercial papers or accnus receivable or by ging and selling contract leases chtel matgages, oe er evidences of indeltedes,o by fn leasing of movable as well as inmnovable propery. 2 Seton 3 (4) of RA No. 8536 (Faveing Company Act of 198) defines Financial asin “a mode of extending credi trough a nenrcanceatle ease couract ude which theless purchases or acres, athe tance othe lee, smaciners, equipment, moor velictes, appliances, busiress and fice machines, and ether movable or immovable _roperty in consideration of the periodic payment by the lesseof a fied amour of mone sufcientto amortize t least seventy 70%) of th purcuse price or acqulsiton cost, cluding ny incidertal expenses anda margin of profit over an ilar period of roles tha 0 (2) years cing which he lessee has the right to hold cd use leased property ith he righ to expense the lease rena pad the lesor and beers the cost ef repairs, manvenanee, rwurnee coe! preserva tere, but with no obligation rape en Is pert to purchase the leased property from the one letra the end ofthe lease contrat.” ative Case Folder, pp. 139-153: Counter-AffidavitHaye 608 17 JOINT RESOLUTION a (1 Syliautenp, Jt v1 Aulaya, eta ONT C-Co18 01 MN and OMI CAT. O12 a Aa TT i te eam ainsh 1 seen Cewebeeett | \ J. ‘The General Provision of the GAAS for 2013, 2014 and 2015 provide for the use and utilization of the Revolving Fund. NPO is engaged in a business-type activity, Liss ing and self-liquidating, All its obligations and perpetin expenditures incurred from its business-lype operations are charged against its Revolving Fund pursuant (o BP Bly, 40," National Budget Circular No. 332, ice Citeular No, 5-80 and Commission on Audit Circular No, 80-140. Fins ‘The a led Tease contracts were post-audited and none of these were disallowed by COA, 5. Although the source of funding of the contracts is the Revolving Fund, the GAAs appeared as the contracts’ funding instrument in the posting of the Notice of Awards because it was the most appropriate among the predetermined (default) options available in the systems of PhilGeps. Other default options were a) Budget for the Contract Approved by the Sanggunian, b) Corporate Budget for the Contract Approved by the Board, and c) Loans/ Grants, all of which were inappropriate funding instrument options. The GAAS appeared as the most appropriate from the choices because its provisions created the Revolving Fund. Lapuz avers that simflar issues were already raised by the complainant anid these were explained to him in a letter” dated July 14, 2015 by Adela L. Dondonilla, Director Ill, Officer-In-Charge, Cluster I-Executive Offices, National Government Sector, COA, attaching her memorandum-explanation”' dated June 24, 2015, and Andaya’s Letter?? dated April 28, 2015, She explains that she led the team of auditors from COA who conducted the post-audit of the contracts, and deemed that the subject contracts were not financial lease "7 Batas Pambansa Bilang 40: An Act Appropr Republic of the Philippines during the Period ing Funds for the Operation of the Government of the rary One to December Thirty-One, Nineteen Hundred and ind Administrative Case Folder pp. 134-135, ministrative Case Folder pp. 136-138Page 7 of 17 JOINT RESOLUTION G. Sslianteng, Jv. E, Andaya, et al (OMB-C-C-15-0438 and OMB-C-A-15-0412 agreements but operating lease agreements because there was no substantial transfer of risks and rewards incidental to ownership from Topbest to NPO. Payments for the contract were made only when the printers were used and treated as production cost of NPO. As State Auditor, her post-audit review were in accordance with existing laws and generally accepted International Accounting Standards (IAS/17) and that of Intemational Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS/13). 75 In his Counter-Affidavit# Nagrampa attaches a Certification’* dated December 23, 2015, from Winifredo R. Talla, Acting Chief, Accounting Section, Finance Management Division of NPO, that their office had sufficient amount of Revolving Fund to pay the subject lease contracts during the times material to the notices of its award and subsistence. In their Joint-Counter-Affidavit® dated December 7, 2015, Dancel and Napoleon deny that they participated in the processing of the assailed contracts and submit the Certification dated December 2, 2015 issued by Andayaas Acting Director of NPO to show that they became members of BAC on April 6, 2015 or only after said contracts were awarded. In his Counter-Affidavit2” Jimmy alleges that the complaint against private respondents is not based on any specific acts but solely on their ownership of Topbest; however, they cannot be made to answer for the acts or liabilities of the corporation as their personalities as incorporators are separate and distinct from the corporation. He alleges that Topbest cannot be categorized as a se Folder pp. 100-111: and Administrative Case Folder pp. 98-109. se Folder pp. 100-111: and Administrative Case Folder pp. 196-202. se Folder p, 113: and Administrative Case Folder p. 204 % Id. Criminal Case Folder, pp. 124-126; and Administrative Case Folder, pp. 218-222: Joint Counter- ‘Affidavit dated December 7, 2015 of R. Dancel and N. Gonzales. 314, Criminal Case Folder, pp. 173-178: Counter-AtTiavit dated October 12, 2015 of Jimmy Co.Pope Rof 17 JOINT RESOLUTION G Syhanteng. Ir-v.E. Andaya, eal OMB-C-C-15-438 and OMB-C-A-15-0412 financing company, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Beltran v. PAIC Finance Corporation?’ viz. Generally speaking. a financing company is not a buyer or seller of goods; itis not a trading company. Neither is it an ordinary leasing company it does not make its profit by buying equipment and repeatedly leasing out such equipment to different users thereof, But a financial lease must be preceded by a purchase and sale contract covering the equipment which becomes the subject matter of the financial lease. Reply In his Consolidated Reply-Affidavit to the Counter-Affidavits of Public Respondents”? dated December 22, 2015, complainant disagrees with the respondents, and argues that 1) the Revolving Fund cannot be used as the funding, instrument of the leased contracts; and 2) respondent-members of NPO-BAC neglected their duties of ensuring that the SEC Registration and Business Permit of Topbest merely authorized it to engage in Financial Lease, which was an ivity that was bid out. He alleges that PhilGeps system did not make the Revolving Fund as an option in the posting of the Notice of Awards because it cannot be used to fund the contracts. Also, he prepared similar complaints for the nineteen lease contracts entered by NPO from 2013 to 2015. NPO’s One Billion One Hundred Twenty Six Million Three Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Pesos (PhP1,126,376,000.00) total worth of its Revolving Fund for said years was not sufficient for the nineteen lease contracts entered into by NPO witha value worth ‘Two Billion Two Hundred Twenty Two Million One Hundred Ninety Three ‘Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Eight Pesos (PhP 2,222,193,738.00). 2 R. Beltran vs, PAIC, et al, G.R. No. 83113. May 19, 1992; and PAIC vs. Sp. Beltran, et al, G.R. No. 83256, May 19, 1992.}r * 1d, Criminal Case Folder, pp. 238-247: and Administrative Case Folder, pp. 157-169.Page 8 17 arbre ( Dia Pe etm Miele | waa He argues that respondents misclassified the lease of printers as operational lease and not as financial lea 0 that ‘Tophest could qualify a awardee of the conttacts. ‘The substance, not the form of the leave, determines pO has control over the printers leased, and has the ability to renew the Jease and to the type of lea ‘The Icase contracts are financial leases because } determine the sufficiency of the payment of the lease to cover the cost of printers. sd machine” taken inside the He submitted pictures” of printers marked as “Leas NPO’s facilities to illustrate NPO’s control over them and their outputs or production. He points out that the costs of the Lease Contracts cover fifty four times the cost of the printers leased. A financial lease exists when the price of the lease covers at least 70% more than the price of the printers. Topbest is not authorized to engage in a financial lease. The secondary purpose in its Articles of Incorporation allows the lease of printers but not their lease out. In his Supplemental Reply-Affidavit’' dated December 23, 2015, complainant emphasizes that Topbest committed an Ultra Vires act when it engaged in leasing out printing machines to NPO and that no amount of good faith of respondents can excuse them from their duty to determine the capacity of the contractor to pursue the activities that were bid out. In their Rejoinder Affidavit? dated January 21, 2016, respondents Banda, Cabral and Enriquez explain that complainant label the contracts as financial Jeases on the wrong notion that (1) there was transfer of ownership of the printing > d,, Criminal Case Folder, pp. 264-265: and Administrative Case Folder, pp. 186-187. 3! fd. Criminal Case Folder, pp. 273-276; and Administrative Case Folder, pp. 192-195. J, Criminal Case Folder, pp. 318-330; and Administrative Case Folder, pp. 226-239.page 10.06 17 JOINT RESOLUTION G, Sylianteng, Jr. v.E, Andaya, et af OMB-C-C-15-0438 and OMB-C. JOSHUA T. JABRICA MB-C-A-15.0412 Seuatenorer tacking by the end of the lease term; (2) NPO has the option to purchase the Coane (3) the term is for the major part of the economic life of the printers even if itis not yet transferred; (4) the value of the minimum lease payment, at the inception of the lease, amounts to at least substantially all of the fair market value of the printers leased; and (5) the printers leased are of such a specified nature that only the lessee can use them without major modifications. ‘The lease contracts provide no provision for transfer of ownership or any option to buy the printers. The contracts” term of one year cannot be considered constitutive of the major part of the printers’ economic lives. The printers were initially leased in 2013, then again in 2014 and 2015. Payment of the printer is not a one-time payment but based on the running consumption. NPO has no obligation to pay the entire amount to Topbest if the use of the printer does not amount to PhP59,450,000.00. ‘Topbest own the printers at the time of the leased contract and it did not purchase them for the contracts only. ‘These are printers being used by Topbest with or without the lease contracts. “The leasing of the printers is necessary to augment the machines of the NPO to meet the voluminous requests from requisitioning agencies, and to supply the latest printing technology to work on specialized government forms. Leasing is deemed to be the most economic: and practical means of the NPO to fulfill its mandate. ‘The PhP 168,450,000.00 figure mentioned by the complaint is an aggregate amount for three different leased contracts in different ; years starting from 2013 to 2015,ST RESOLTION OMB CCE RYE Anima eat MEE and OMB-CALISA12 oe \ In his Rejoinder* , ejoinder* dated January 22, 2016, Nagrampa refutes complainant's c! im that NPO has no sufficient funds for its lease contracts and argues 11 . ‘cally that the operations of NPO has shown othenwise. Employees getth ri : get their salaries and benefits; suppliers were paid: and the Department of Budget and Management and the COA have not seen any adverse issues regarding insufficient funding. In his Rejoinder>* Andaya emphasizes that complainant's opinions on public procurement, banking and quasi-banking practices, government accounting and audit, legislative appropriations and other intricate matters should be verified first by a more leamed legal and technical mind, before it can be used as basis of complainant before the Office of the Ombudsman. His opinions cannot be used as substitute for the opinion of the auditor who did not find any irregularity in the subject lease contracts. In his Sur-Rejoinder® dated January 9, 2016, complainant “expounds on the arguments in his previous pleadings. Verified Position Papers Jn compliance with the Order” dated May 18, 2016 issued by this Office, the complainant, Andaya, Banda, Cabral, Enriquez, Buenaventura, Nagrampa, Daneel, Napoleon, and Lapuz submitted their respective Verified Position Papers reiterating the arguments they have earlier proffered. 3944 , Criminal Case Folder, pp. 240-245; and Administrative Case Folder. pp. 332-337. 1 Case Folder, pp. 348-353; and Administrative Case Folder, pp: 256-261. tive Case Folder, pp. 262-268. ‘Case Folder, pp. 292-293.Page 120f 17 JOINT RESOLUTION G. Syliameng, drs. E. And OMB-C-C-15-0438 and OND Issues The issue in tt : he issue in this case is whether there is probable cause’” to indict respondents for violation of Section 3(¢) and 4(b) of RA No. 3019, as amended, RA No. 9184, RA No. 8556, and Malvers (a idence’* i substantial evidence™* to hold public respondents admin‘ tion and Plunder and/or ratively liable for i 39 . A Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct" for entering into contracts of lease of ing equipment and machinery with Topbest, and for indicating in the pri Notices of Award that the source of funding for the leases is the GAA. Noteworthy is that complainant initially questioned NPO's lease contracts with Topbest in his Letter Complaint dated November 13, 2014 which he filed before COA and the Office of the Ombudsman. In the Memorandum*! dated December 29, 2014, Lapuz, as leader of the Audit Team who looked into the complaint filed before COA, presented their findings that there were no irregularities in the lease contracts. Complainant deemed that the findings of Lapuz’s Team is unacceptable, and imputed ignorance and grave abuse of discretion on the part of Lapuz. Insisting that there were irregularities, he filed these administrative and criminal cases against respondents. » Probable cause is defined as “such faets and circumstances that would engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and thatthe respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial (Baviera v. Paglinawan, etal, G.R. Nos, 168380 and 170602, February 8, 2007).” 5" Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support ‘a conclusion (Barillo v.Gervacio, G.R. No, 155088, August 31, 2006 > Pyishonesty is the “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; u (Office of the Ombudsman v, Torres, G.R. No. 168309, January 25 Ged. (1990).” © Misconduct isa deviation from the established norms of conduct required of a public servant (CSC Resolution No. 00-1483, dated June 21, 2000). Grave Misconduct generally means wrongful, imrporper oF ‘uslawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose, a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a derelition of duty, willfa in character and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment (fice of te Court Administrator v. Paderanga, A.M. No. RIJ-DI-1660, August 25, 2005). Records, Criminal Case Folder, pp. 115-117; and Administrative Case Folder, pp. 134-135, trustworthiness, lack of integrity 9. 2008, citing Black's Law Dietionary.Page 13of 17 JOINT RESOLUTION Samer JPME Andy, et eemrreb ce Pree ne oan -C-C-15-0438 and OMB-CoAL eu nae : -C-A-15-0412 bers esar ‘ot PasreR \ Section 2 ic (2), Article IX-D, Constitution of the Philippines provides that COA has th it “© Power, authority and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts and expenditures of the funds and properties of the 1 Philippine government. Owards this end, the COA has the exclusive author rity to define the scope, ‘echniques and methods of its auditing and examination procedures. It also may Prevent and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties. In the absence of any indication of impropriety, the result of COA’s examination should be given due weight. It cannot be set aside by mere complainant’s observations. COA auditors are more competent in settling technical issues on accounts and expenditures of the funds and properties of NPO. In Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals,” the Supreme Court ruled that the findings or conclusions of administrative bodies are generally respected and even given finality The COA Audit Team found the lease contracts as regular. Complainant, on the other hand, deemed otherwise. They varied on whether the contracts were financial lease or an operational lease; and whether the revolving fund can be legally used for these contracts. Pitted against each other, the COA Auditors, by their special knowledge and expertise over accounts and expenditures of the funds and properties of the Philippine government, are in a better position to pass judgment thereon. There being no sufficient evidence that the contract involve financial leases and that the revolving funds cannot be used for the contracts, then G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997,Page of 7 JOINT ESOL Hon Sine, And OMB-COAB OE andOMeC Rd sont2 likewise, there isi ienit evi ; > Mere is insufficient evidence that irregular or illegal acts predicated thereon, were committed by respondents A violation under Section 3(¢) of R.A. 3019 requires the following elements: () the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unvarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. The first element is not disputed, However, the second and third elements. are not present. The manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence of respondents were not proven by sufficient evidence. Also, the extent of the “undue injury” allegedly caused by the respondents was not established nor substantiated. There is also no probable cause for violation of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The elements of Malversation under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) That the offender be a public officer; (b) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and (d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. * Albert v, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, February 26, 2009. “ Cecilia U, Legrama v. Sandiganbayan et al, Q. R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012, citing L.B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, pp. 595 (15% ed., 2001).Page 15 of 17 JOINT RESOLUTION G Syliameng. Jp. v, B. OMB Andaya, et al, “15-0438 and OMB-C-A-15-0412 Respondent: S Were not shown to have appropriated, misappropriated or con sented, or through abandonment or negligence, , permitted another person to take public funds, : ; ‘The business-type activity of NPO necessitates that its Operational expenditures and obligations. * including payments for the lease of Printers it uses, shall be charged against its Revolving Funds. The procedures to be followed in the use of the Revolving Fund is provided in National Budget Circular No. 332, Finance Circular No. 5-80, Commission on Audit Circular No, 80-140 dated May 2, 1980 (Systems and Procedures Governing the Creation/Operation of the Government Printing Office Revolving Fund for Supplies and Materials, Pursuant to Special Provisions, Batas Pambansa Bilang 40). Based on the foregoing, there is lack of evidence that (a) the rules on procurement were violated, or irregularities attended the lease of the printers; (b) contracts involve financial lease; and (c) respondents committed overt acts through which they acquired an ill-gotten wealth worth at least P50,000,000.00. Thus, there is probable cause that respondents violated RA No. 8556 and RA No. 7080. Corollary to the above findings, there is also lack of substantial evidence (ed Grave Misconduct. that respondents com Dishonesty was not proven. The statement that the leased projects were funded by GAA does not appear to have been made to lie to, cheat, deceive, or defraud anyone, The Revolving Fund, which would actually fund the contracts was not among the predetermined (default) options available in the systems of PhilGeps for posting. The fund came from the GAA. Hence, by choosing “GAA", respondents did not intend to mislead the public, but merely choose the most appropriate among the system's options. ‘The subject contracts are laced with technical matters that are not conventionally comprehensible except to those who have specialized knowledgePage 1608 17 JOINT RESOLUTION G_ Sylinnteng, Jr. v. E, Andaya, et al ot 0438 and OMB: 0412 thy Senet 7 Oo 7 ‘i ereof, ‘Their mistakes, ifany, “are not actionable absent any clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith." WHEREFORE, these criminal and administrative cases are dismissed. SO RESOLVED. Quezon City, Philippines, October 28, 2016. Ona Le CEZAR M. TIROL I Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II REVIEWED BY: RUTH L. apelin trl Acting Director, PIAB-F RECOMMENDING APPROVAL: Ay, 06 Bes. Az6 MARILOU ah MHETA-MEJICA ‘Assistant Ombudsman, PAMO II APPROVEDABSAPPROVED— CONCTIFA CARPIO MORALES oI (F Ombudsman /4; ‘6 Collantes vs, Marcelo, G.R. No. 167006-07, August 14, 2007.OMDACETS3§ agg ta Cony furnished: SUILLERMO L, s 37 Balan OE SYLIANTENG Marikina Heights 1810 Marikina City EMMANUEL AN DA 12, BS3, A, Ricarte ie AFPOVAIPhase IV” 1634 Taguig City SYLVIA C. BANDA, Block 10, Lot 1, Barar BI , Lot 1, Barangay Langan Phase IV, Cityhomes Resorwille Dasmarinas, 4114 Cavite NAPOLEON GONZALES B-6, L-26 Carissa Homes, 4- Kaypian San Jose De! Monte, 3023 Bulacan RUBEN A. DANCEL Production Planning and Control officer 51 Alley 2, Palosapis St. Barangay Amihan, Project 3, 1102 Quezon City BUENAVENTURA GLORIA GONZALES, JR. L-14, B-32F, HV Dela Costa Homes It Barangay 179, Novaliches, 1400 Caloocan City RAUL SERRANO NAGRAMPA 29 P. Garcia St. AFPOVAI 1634 Taguig City NILDA CABASE LAPUZ 22 Dinar St, Michael Homes, Pandayan ‘Meycauyan, 3020 BulacanL6, Victoria St, Dela Costa Homes Il, ‘Novaliches, Caloocan City (MA. GRACIA L. ENRIQUEZ B2 U3 Violeta Mansions, Turo Bocave, Bulacan BENEDICTO M.CABRAL National Printing Office NIA Rosd, Quezon City Buenaventura B. Miranda Doreen Grace Fermin edzon Cristian C. Lauang ‘Chavez Miranda Aseoche Law Offices ‘Counsel for Private Respondents TEODOFREDO AND JIMMY CO 8" Floor , One Corporate Plaza 845 Arnaiz Avenue, San Lorenzo Village Makati City