GR 123144; (October, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123144, 123207 & 123536; October 15, 2003
PABLO P. BURGOS, FRANCISCO G. PEDRIGAL, JESUS B. SABANDO, ABELARDO M. MONGE, JR., and FLAVIANO B. GALAPON, petitioners, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, public officers of the then Ministry of Public Works and Highways (MPWH) Region VIII, were convicted by the Sandiganbayan for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act). The case stemmed from the repair of 19 old surveying instruments. Petitioners Galapon and Monge initiated the requisition, Pedrigal facilitated the procurement, and the contract was awarded to Engineering & Surveying Instruments Center (ESIC). After ESIC returned the instruments, petitioners Galapon, Burgos, Monge, and Sabando, as members of the Inspectorate Committee, inspected and certified them as functional and operational, leading to payment.
Subsequently, a Commission on Audit (COA) technical inspector conducted three post-inspections and repeatedly found numerous defects and deficiencies in the same instruments. Based on these findings, an information was filed alleging that petitioners, in conspiracy with ESIC’s proprietor, entered into a contract and certified payment despite knowing the instruments were not properly repaired, causing undue injury to the government through manifest partiality or evident bad faith.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the petitioners. The prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The core of the charge was that petitioners certified the instruments as functional despite knowing they were not. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, primarily the COA post-inspection reports, insufficient to meet this high standard of proof. These reports only indicated the presence of defects and deficiencies; they did not constitute a categorical declaration that the instruments were utterly non-functional or non-operational.
Conversely, the petitioners presented both testimonial and documentary evidence to substantiate their claim that the instruments were indeed operational after repair. The prosecution offered no evidence to rebut this defense. In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove every element of the crime with moral certainty. The mere existence of defects post-repair, without proof of the petitioners’ conscious knowledge of total non-functionality at the time of certification and their deliberate intent to cause injury through partiality or bad faith, does not suffice for a conviction under the Anti-Graft law. The evidence created reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.