BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
ARNOLD D. NAVALES, ET AL. VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 219598, WILLIAM VELASCO GUILLEN, G.R. NO. 220108, AUGUST 7, 2024: VIOLATION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OF PROCUREMENT LAWS WILL NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO CONVICTION OF ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
Petitioners Arnold D. Navales, Rey C. Chavez, Rosindo J. Almonte, Alfonso E. Laid and William V. Guillen (“Petitioners”) filed Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to assail their conviction of the Sandiganbayan for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioners Navales, Chavez and Guillen were members of the Pre-Bidding and Awards Committee-B (“PBAC-B”) of the Davao City Water District (“DCWD”) while Almonte was the Division Manager of the DCWD’s Engineering and Construction Division while Laid was the Assistant General Manager for Administration.
In Board Resolution No. 97-248 adopted on November 21, 1997, the DCWD Board of Directors approved the recommendation of General Manager Wilfredo A. Carbonquillo to undertake Cabantian Water Supply System Project with an estimated budget of Php33,200,000.00 and to directly negotiate with Hydrock Wells, Inc. (“Hydrock”) for the initial drilling works. The phase consisted of simultaneous drilling of two (2) wells VES 15 and VES 21 Projects with a cost of Php4,000,000.00 each.
PBAC-B dispensed with the advertisement requirements and instead invited well drillers to participate in the VES 15 and VES 21 projects. Hydrock, AMG and Drill Mechanics, Inc. responded out of four (4) invited drillers. AMG and Drill Mechanics, however, moved for the projects to be deferred at a later date due to their unavailability of equipment. In a Resolution No. 06-97 dated December 16, 1997, PBAC-B recommended to the head of DCWD for approval, with a recommendation to award the project to Hydrock due to its track record, efficiency, quoted price and urgency. In a Resolution No. 98-27 dated February 13, 1998, DCWD Board of Directors awarded the project to Hydrock with Php2,807,100.00 for VES 15 and Php2,349,180.00 for VES 21.
Several complaints for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act were filed – violations of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 for non-observance of bidding processes for VES 15 and VES 21, and Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, Dishonesty and Gross Negligence for VES 15 and VES 21. These four (4) complaints proceeded independently. Petitioners were convicted of violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 as Sandiganbayan found the elements to be present: (1) Petitioners were public officers discharging official functions at the time material to the case; (2) Petitioners acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality when they conspired to award VES 21 to Hydrock through negotiated contract dispensing the requirement of public bidding and even allowing the project to proceed prior to issuance of notice to proceed; and (3) the acts gave Hydrock unwarranted benefits, preference and advantage.
While their Petitions for Review on Certiorari were pending, the Supreme Court issued a Decision dated July 20, 2016, ruling on the administrative case as to VES 21 only as ruling also on VES 15 would amount res judicata. In the said Decision, the Court only found them liable for Simple Misconduct and they were ordered reinstated to their former positions. Manifesting the same, the Petitioners were able to convince the Supreme Court to exonerate them. The Court adopted the findings in the administrative case that there is absence of evidence with respect to corruption, bad faith and complicity with Carbonquillo in the procurement of VES 21. The Court even credited them for disregarding the recommendation of Carbonquillo to award the project to Hydrock immediately and still invited other drillers.
Finally, citing the case of Martel vs. People, G.R. Nos. 224720-23 & 224765-68, February 2, 2021, which held that violation of procurement law does not ipso facto lead to the conviction of Section 3 (e) RA 3019. “To successfully prosecute an accused under said section, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused violated the procurement law through evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross negligence thereby causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.” The Supreme Court held that the Petitioners honestly believed that negotiated procurement was allowed under the circumstances considering that: (1) there was poor participation from well drillers for the project; and (2) there was a public outcry for potable water with people holding public demonstrations. Hence, Davao City was faced with a water crisis at that time. The Court held that these circumstances could not support the conclusion that the Petitioners were motivated with evident bad faith and manifest partiality.
Aside from the second element, the Supreme Court also held that the third element is also absent. The Court held that the Petitioners merely recommended, and it was the Board of Directors which has the power and awarded the contract to Hydrock. The Court held that there is reasonable doubt if the Petitioners intentionally gave Hydrock unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. Hence, the conviction of the Petitioners by the Sandiganbayan was reversed and they were all acquitted of the charges against them.