5 Davao City water execs walk on graft raps

- Advertisement -

THE Supreme Court has ruled that violations of procurement laws by public officers will not automatically result in a conviction under Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

In an 18-page decision dated August 7, 2024, the SC’s First Division, through Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez, held that all elements of graft need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under RA 3019, not just the deficiencies in the procurement process.

The decision acquitted Arnold Navales, Rey Chavez, Rosindo Almonte, Alfonso Laid, and William Guillen of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 that stemmed from a case filed in connection with their position as officials of the Davao City Water District (DCWD), particularly with the Pre-Bidding and Awards Committee-B (PBAC-B).

- Advertisement -

Records of the case showed that the DCWD Board of Directors approved DCWD General Manager Wilfredo Carbonquillo’s recommendation to directly negotiate with Hydrock Wells, Inc. for the drilling phase of the water district’s water supply project.

In a resolution, PBAC-B waived the advertisement requirement for bidding and invited accredited well drillers to participate in the project.

Only three responded, including Hydrock.

With this, the PBAC-B recommended that the Board award Hydrock the P33.2 million project through a negotiated contract, which was subsequently approved in November 1997.

In 2005, administrative and criminal complaints were filed against the petitioners for bypassing the competitive public bidding mandated by Presidential Decree No. 1594, which outlines regulations for government infrastructure contracts.

In a 2015 decision, the Sandiganbayan convicted them, saying the prosecution was able to prove that they acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in awarding the contract to Hydrock through a negotiated contract, instead of public bidding.

They were sentenced by the anti-graft court from six years to 10 years imprisonment and their motion for reconsideration for lack of merit was junked.

The petitioners elevated the case to the SC, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt and that they did not conspire or act with bad faith in awarding the contract to Hydrock.

They also faulted their former counsel for not presenting evidence or allowing them to testify on their behalf, depriving them of the opportunity to present their defense.

In its ruling, the SC sided with the petitioners and ruled that they cannot be held liable for the administrative complaint of grave misconduct unless there is proof of bad faith.

“On the merits, absent any showing of corruption or bad faith, petitioners could not be held liable for grave misconduct. At most, they were answerable only for simple neglect of duty for failure to strictly comply with the procurement procedures and to exercise due diligence in the discharge of their duties,” the SC said, adding they were only guilty of simple neglect of duty or simple misconduct.

In relation to the criminal complaint that led to their conviction by the Sandiganbayan for graft, the SC stated that failure to follow procurement laws is not enough to prove graft unless there is evidence of malicious intent.

To convict someone under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the SC held that a person must be a public officer doing their job, he or she must have acted in bad faith, shown clear favoritism, or been grossly negligent, and that their actions must have caused harm to someone or given unfair advantages or benefits to another person.

To fall under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, a procurement violation must be done in bad faith, with manifest partiality or inexcusable negligence harming a party, including the government, or giving another undue preference, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits.

But the SC said it found out that the petitioners, as members of the PBAC-B merely recommended to the DCWD Board the award of contract.

It was the DCWD Board that had the authority to approve and award the contract to Hydrock.

“Even if the Court makes its own assessment of the facts and records of the present criminal case independent of the findings in the administrative case, petitioners must still be acquitted. Contrary to the conclusions of the Sandiganbayan, the prosecution failed to establish the concurrence of all the essential elements of the crime charged against the petitioners,” the SC said.

- Advertisement -spot_img

“Hence, while the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan as a trial court are accorded weight and respect, the Court shall not hesitate to reverse the conclusions which are based on misappreciation of facts relative to applicable law and jurisprudence,” it added.

The High Court also found that petitioners did not intentionally give Hydrock undue advantage as it was Carbonquillo who recommended giving the award to Hydrock, which petitioners disregarded and instead invited other accredited well drillers. However, it was Hydrock that submitted the lowest price quotations.

Concurring with the decision were Chieh Justice Alexander Gesmundo and Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando, Ricardo Rosario and Rodil Zalameda.

Author

- Advertisement -

Share post: