The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that violations of public procurement laws do not automatically lead to a conviction for bribing officials for corrupt practices under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, the SC reiterated that “the burden is on the prosecution to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The SC decision made public last November 8 in GR Nos. 219598 and 220108 reversed the 2015 decisions of the Sandiganbayan and ordered the acquittal of Arnold D. Navales, Rey C. Chavez, Rosindo J. Almonte, Alfonso E. Ugly and William. V. Guillen for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, Anti-Bribery and Corruption Practices Act.

Those acquitted were officials of the Davao City Water District (DCWD), most of whom were members of the company’s Pre-Bid and Award Committee B (PBAC-B).

Besides Navales, Chavez, Almonte, Laid and Quillen, also accused before the Sandiganbayan were Wilfredo a. Carbonquillo, general manager, and Wilfred G. Yamson, assistant general manager.

In the Sandiganbayan ruling of March 26, 2015, the anti-graft court sentenced Navales and his four co-defendants to a prison term ranging from six to 10 years with a perpetual ban on holding public office.

The cases against Carbonquillo and Yamson were dismissed because they remained at large.

Navales and his group challenged their conviction before the SC when their requests for reconsideration were denied by the Sandiganbayan.

Corrupt and corrupt practices by public officials and employees are detailed in Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Bribery and Corrupt Practices Act.

Under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, public officials and employees are held liable for corrupt practices by “causing undue harm to any party, including the government, or granting to a private party unjustified advantages, advantages or preferences in the performance of their duties.” his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest bias, obvious bad faith or gross and inexcusable negligence.

A history of the case summarized by the SC Public Information Office (SC-PIO) indicated that in 1997, the DCWD Board of Directors approved Carbonquillo’s recommendation to negotiate directly with Hydrock Wells, Inc. ( Hydrock) for the drilling phase of the company’s water supply project.

He said PBAC-B had waived the advertising requirement for tenders and instead invited accredited well drillers to participate in the project. Only three responded, including Hydrock, the summary said.

The PBAC-B recommended that the board award the project to Hydrock through a negotiated contract, which was subsequently approved, it said.

In 2005, administrative and criminal complaints were filed against DCWD officials. The complaints led to the conviction of Navales and his group.

Regarding administrative complaints, the SC ruled that Navales and his group cannot be held responsible for serious misconduct, unless there is proof of bad faith. Instead, the SC found them guilty of simple negligence of duty or simple professional misconduct for not properly following procurement procedures.

The SC-PIO also stated:

“The SC acquitted the petitioners (Navales and the four others), stating that non-compliance with public procurement laws is not sufficient to prove corruption, unless there is evidence of malicious intent .

“To convict someone under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the person must be a public official carrying out his job. The agent must have acted in bad faith, shown obvious favoritism, or been grossly negligent. Their actions must have caused harm to someone or conferred unfair advantage or benefit on another person.

“To fall within Section 3(e) of RA 3019, a procurement violation must be committed in bad faith, with manifest bias or inexcusable negligence causing prejudice to a party, including the government , or conferring on any other undue preference, or granting any private party undue hardship. benefits.

“The Court found that petitioners, as members of the PBAC-B, had merely recommended to the DCWD Board of Directors the award of the contract. It was the DCWD Board of Directors that had the authority to approve and award the contract to Hydrock.

“While there may have been irregularities in the public procurement process that violated public procurement laws, there was no evidence demonstrating that the petitioners were motivated by obvious bias or bad faith.

“Instead, the petitioners resorted to a negotiated contract, believing that this was an exceptional case given the urgency of the procurement and the lack of qualified bidders.

“The Court also found that Petitioners did not intentionally give Hydrock an unfair advantage, as it was Carbonquillo who recommended awarding the award to Hydrock, which Petitioners failed to consider and instead invited other accredited well drillers. However, it was Hydrock that submitted the lowest bids.

The operative part of the SC decision:

“For these reasons, the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari are granted. The March 26, 2015 Decision and August 7, 2015 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan (Third Special Division) in Criminal Case No. SB-CRM-0067 are set aside. Petitioners Arnold D. Navales, Rey C. Chavez, Rosindo J. Almonte, Alfonso E. Laid, and William V. Guillen are acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Let the judgment be rendered immediately. So ordered.