1. Sistoza v.

Desierto
Facts:
The Pre-Qualification, Bid and Awards Committee (PBAC) of the Bureau of Corrections
(BOC) offered for public bidding the supply of tomato paste to be used as ingredient in the
diet of the inmates of the New Bilibid Prison. The winner of the bidding was Elias Co.
Filcrafts Inc. came in second place because although they were offering a lower price, the
product they were offering did not meet the specifications set by the PBAC. Following the
required process, the necessary documents were passed around 3 divisions of the PBAC for
scrutiny and approval before it finally landed with petitioner, the Director of BOC, for final
approval.

Eventually, based on the facts, the Ombudsman charged petitioner for violating the anti-graft
and corrupt practices act in conspiracy with Elias Co.
Issue:
W/N THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE OMBUDSMAN TO FILE CHARGES
AGAINST PETITIONER
Held:
1.) No, although ordinarily the SC does not interfere with the discretion of the
Ombudsman in the determination of probable cause, there are certain exceptions as
when he acted with grave abuse of discretion as in the case at hand.
There is no direct evidence that petitioner Sistoza acted in
conspiracy with the officers and members of the PBAC and the other implicated
public officials. He did not himself participate in the bidding procedures nor was he
involved in the award of the supply of tomato paste to Elias General Merchandising.
Plainly, the accusation against him rests upon his signature on the purchase order and
his repeated endorsements thereof notwithstanding his knowledge that the winning
bidder did not offer the least price. The Ombudsman concluded that these acts
constituted manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or even gross inexcusable negligence
resulting in undue injury to the government elements of the crime charged.
a. The fact that petitioner had knowledge of the status of Elias General
Merchandising as being only the second lowest bidder does not ipso facto
characterize petitioner's act of reliance as recklessly imprudent without which
the crime could not have been accomplished. Albeit misplaced, reliance in
good faith by a head of office on a subordinate upon whom the primary
responsibility rests negates an imputation of conspiracy by gross inexcusable
negligence to commit graft and corruption. As things stand, petitioner is
presumed to have acted honestly and sincerely when he depended upon
responsible assurances that everything was aboveboard since it is not always
the case that second best bidders in terms of price are automatically
disqualified from the award considering that the PBAC reserves the authority
to select the best bid not only in terms of the price offered but other factors as
well.