Sandiganbayan clears ex-Capiz guv, two others in procurement case

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the graft case filed against former Capiz governor Esteban Evan Contreras and two other provincial officials over alleged contract splitting in violation of the country’s procurement law.

In a 33-page resolution dated August 4, Presiding Justice Michael Frederick Musngi of the Fourth Division granted the demurrers to evidence filed by Contreras, former provincial administrator Edwin Monares, and former Roxas Memorial Provincial Hospital (RMPH) officer-in-charge Edmarie Tormon.

The three were charged with violating Section 65(a)(4), Article 21 of Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act, which prohibits splitting contracts to evade procurement thresholds and competitive bidding requirements.

The charges stemmed from two contracts entered into by the provincial government: a PHP5.728-million dialysis package and a PHP1.499-million dialyzer procurement for RMPH.

The prosecution alleged that the contracts were deliberately split to fall under the threshold for small value procurement (SVP), avoiding public bidding.

However, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally split the contracts to circumvent procurement rules.

“In all criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,” the court said.

“This the prosecution failed to do.”

The resolution stated that while documentary evidence—such as requisition issue slips, purchase orders, notices of award, and delivery receipts—was presented, it was not enough to prove the intent to commit contract splitting.

The court said the documents alone, without further evidence, could not establish with moral certainty that SVP was misused to avoid procurement procedures.

It emphasized that SVP is a lawful procurement method under existing rules and cannot be presumed to be used illegally without clear evidence.

“Absent any showing of violation or circumvention, SVP may be validly used by the accused as provided by the rules,” the court said.

The court also rejected the prosecution’s argument that the signatures of the officials in procurement documents were proof of conspiracy.

“The accused are implicated solely based on their signatures appearing in the procurement documents,” the resolution read.

“Without any other proof, there is reasonable doubt that the accused acted in conspiracy with one another.”

The dismissal of the case effectively clears the three officials of criminal liability in the alleged procurement violation.