by Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
Antonio Suba vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 235418 (03 March 2021)
Restitution of Amount to Government Key to Acquittal in Graft Cases
During the first Sunday of this month, we discussed about the case of a former Mayor in Quezon, Bukidnon who was convicted of graft for benefiting from the bid of the municipality for heavy equipment. In the case of Leonardo vs. People. G.R. No. 246451 (03 February 2021), a former Mayor of Quezon was convicted for using the town’s bid deposit to save cost from his purchase of heavy equipment and letting the town shoulder the transportation of his equipment from Subic back to Bukidnon. In the recent case of Antonio Suba vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 235418 (03 March 2021), the Supreme Court acquitted a former official of the Philippine Aerospace Development Corporation (“PADC”) for his and his superior’s unauthorized travel to Beijing, China to attend a conference.
Petitioner Suba was the former Acting Vice President for Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul Service of the PADC, who along with its President and Chief Executive Officer, requested from its mother agency, the Department of Transportation and Communication (“DOTC”), for a travel authority to attend the 4th Biennial International Aircraft Conversion and Maintenance Conference in Beijing, China from 10-14 October 2006. Their request, however, was denied due to a standing policy against foreign travels at that time.
Petitioner Suba and his late President and CEO in PADC requested for cash advances and they flew and attended the conference in Beijing. However, their cash advances were disallowed by the Commission on Audit, and a case was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner Suba only since his late President and CEO already died. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Suba but the Supreme Court acquitted him of the criminal charge for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or “causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.”
Under the said provision, the following elements must be present to sustain conviction: 1) the offender is a public officer; 2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative, or judicial functions; 3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and 4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference.
In the acquitting petitioner Suba, the Court held that he did not act with evident bad faith, which standard must be a clear malevolent intent to defraud the Government. The Court succinctly held:
“Here, it is undisputed that Suba and Navida attended an aviation conference on aircraft maintenance in Beijing, China, which was relevant to their functions as VP for Operations and President of PADC, respectively. The cash that was disbursed to Suba and Navida were actually used in connection with their attendance in said conference. Navida also assured Suba that they have a travel authority from the DOTC Secretary and that the PADC Board, where the DOTC Secretary sits as Chairman, had previously approved foreign travels of P ADC officials. Subsequently, Suba restituted the subject amount, after the COA Notice of Disallowance became final and executory.
Given these circumstances, it cannot be said that Suba acted with a palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose or with some perverse or ill motive, that is tantamount to ‘evident bad faith’ which the Anti-Graft Law seeks to punish. There was a legitimate purpose. There was a prior and general approval by the PADC Board. There was a verbal assurance from his superior and travel companion that they have the approval of the DOTC Secretary. Suba also returned the disallowed amount after his appeal was denied, which in some cases was deemed a badge of good faith.”
In the instant case, the Government vigorously argued before the Supreme Court to sustain the conviction since petitioner Suba, according to the Government, wrote in his Immigration Information Card that he is a businessman and did not disclose that he is a government official. However, to my mind, although it was not stated in the Decision dated 03 March 2021, it was clear the key for petitioner Suba’s acquittal was his restitution of the amount of Two Hundred Forty-One Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-Eight Pesos and 68/100 Centavos (Php241,478.68) after the finality of the Notice of Disallowance before the case was filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Now, in Leonardo vs. People, supra, the accused therein also restituted and reimbursed the Municipality. However, it was stated in the ruling that the Municipal Accountant of Quezon, Bukidnon had to make a demand for reimbursement five (5) times. In the instant case if Suba vs. Sandiganbayan, supra, the accused voluntarily restituted the amount to PADC, thereby negating injury on the part of the Government. Based on jurisprudence, the trend recently is that when there is a Notice of Disallowance, the concerned public official must return the said amount voluntarily before a case will be filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.