TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that a public official, specifically the acting president of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), was wrongly charged with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for approving a vehicle purchase. The Court emphasized that merely signing documents based on subordinates’ recommendations, without evidence of bad faith, partiality, or gross negligence, does not constitute a violation. This decision protects heads of offices from undue prosecution when they reasonably rely on the expertise and good faith of their subordinates in routine administrative processes, reinforcing the principle that public office does not equate to automatic liability for every procedural detail.

When Trust is Not a Crime: Re-examining Official Accountability in Public Procurement

This case revolves around Jose M. Roy III, then acting president of PLM, who was accused of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for his role in the allegedly irregular procurement of a Hyundai Starex van. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Roy for causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to a private party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The core issue was whether Roy, by approving the purchase based on the recommendation of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), acted with the requisite criminal intent or negligence to warrant prosecution under anti-graft laws.

The prosecution argued that direct contracting, the method used for procurement, was improper because Hyundai Otis was not the exclusive dealer, and that Roy failed to ensure proper procedure and authorization from the Board of Regents. However, the Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts and relevant jurisprudence, overturned the Ombudsman’s resolution, finding no probable cause to indict Roy. The Court meticulously examined the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, which requires proof that the accused public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, and that such action caused undue injury or unwarranted benefit. Referencing the case of Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, the Court reiterated these elements as essential for a conviction under this provision.

Justice A. Reyes, Jr., writing for the Second Division, highlighted the absence of the second and third elements of the offense in Roy’s actions. The decision underscored that “manifest partiality,” “evident bad faith,” and “gross inexcusable negligence” are not presumed but must be proven. Quoting Coloma, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, the Court defined these terms, emphasizing that bad faith implies “a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity,” and gross negligence is characterized by a “want of even slight care.” The Court found no evidence that Roy exhibited any of these culpable states of mind. His actions were limited to approving the BAC’s recommendation, a body tasked with expertise in procurement processes. The Court pointed out that Roy did not participate in the selection of dealers or the actual procurement process itself.

Crucially, the Supreme Court invoked the doctrine established in Sistoza v. Desierto and Arias v. Sandiganbayan. Sistoza cautioned against automatically inferring bad faith from a mere signature on a purchase order, while Arias recognized the practical limitations faced by heads of offices who must rely on subordinates. The Court in Arias stated,

We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by all too common problems—dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain incompetence — is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not personally examine every single detail…

This principle acknowledges the realities of bureaucratic function and the necessity for delegation and trust in subordinates. The Court reasoned that holding heads of offices liable for every procedural misstep, without evidence of personal culpability, would be impractical and unjust.

Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of undue injury to the government or unwarranted benefit to a private party. The vehicle was purchased for its intended purpose, and there was no indication of financial loss or illicit gain. Even assuming negligence on Roy’s part for relying on the BAC, the Court deemed it, at worst, “gross negligence,” which, in this context, did not equate to the criminal culpability required under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, especially in light of the subsequent settlement of the COA suspension. The Court ultimately concluded that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause, as the evidence did not establish the essential elements of the offense. The petition was granted, and the criminal case against Roy was dismissed, reinforcing the principle of reasonable reliance and the limits of liability for public officials in complex administrative processes.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Roy III v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 225718, March 04, 2020