G.R. No. 228154 , October 16, 2019
Simeon Gabriel Rivera, Marilou Farnacio Cantancio, Cesar V. Pradas, and Eduardo A. Clariza, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, members of the Philippine Sports Commission Bids and Awards Committee (PSC-BAC), along with others, were charged with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The information alleged that from July 17 to December 5, 2007, they conspired to give unwarranted benefits to Elixir Sports Company (Elixir) by dispensing with the requirement to publish the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid (IAEB) in a newspaper of general circulation and by declaring Elixir as the winning bidder despite its failure to meet the eligibility requirement of having existed for at least three consecutive years prior to the advertisement. This allegedly resulted in an overprice of Php671,200.00, causing undue injury to the government. After trial, the Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty, sentencing them to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office, while acquitting their co-accused William Ramirez. The Sandiganbayan ruled that petitioners exhibited manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence by not advertising the IAEB in a newspaper, thereby preventing competition, and by evaluating Elixir as a qualified bidder despite its non-compliance with the three-year existence requirement.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision and acquitted the petitioners. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , particularly the modes of commission: manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
1. On the Publication Requirement: The Court found that petitioners substantially complied with the law by posting the IAEB on the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS), the PSC website, and the PSC-BAC bulletin board. The law ( R.A. No. 9184 ) allows alternative methods of publication, and posting on the PhilGEPS is a recognized mode. The prosecution did not present evidence that petitioners deliberately avoided newspaper publication to prevent competition or favor Elixir.
2. On the Eligibility Requirement: The Court noted that the information and the prosecution’s evidence focused on Elixir’s failure to meet the three-year existence requirement as a partnership (registered in November 2006). However, the defense presented evidence that Elixir, as a sole proprietorship of one of its owners, had been dealing with the PSC as a supplier since 2004, which could satisfy the requirement of having dealt with the procuring entity for a period of time. The Sandiganbayan’s finding of manifest partiality was based on a misapprehension of this fact.
3. On the Elements of the Crime: The Court emphasized that to convict under Section 3(e), the state must prove that the accused acted through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Mere allegations or procedural lapses, without proof of corrupt intent or conscious disregard of duty, are insufficient. The prosecution failed to establish that petitioners acted with deliberate partiality, malicious motive, or conscious indifference to duty. The procedural deviations, standing alone, did not constitute competent evidence of the required modes of commission.
4. On Presumption of Innocence: The petitioners are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The proof of guilt must amount to moral certainty. The evidence presented by the prosecution did not overcome this presumption. The findings of the Commission on Audit (COA) that found no irregularities in the procurement were also noted.
Therefore, the Court granted the petition and acquitted petitioners Simeon Gabriel Rivera, Marilou Farnacio Cantancio, Cesar V. Pradas, and Eduardo A. Clariza due to the prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.