GR 164921; (July, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164921 . July 8, 2005
ROSENDO H. ESCARA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
The Provincial Government of Quezon awarded a contract to V.M. Guadinez Construction Supply (VMGCS) for lumber to repair the Navotas Bridge. The materials were delivered to Barangay Captain Bernie Azaula. Subsequently, DENR personnel confiscated 73 pieces of undocumented lumber near the bridge site, marked them, and turned them over to Azaula for safekeeping. An investigation later revealed that these very confiscated lumber, bearing DENR markings, were used in the bridge’s construction.
Petitioner Rosendo H. Escara, then Municipal Mayor, certified in an Inspection Report and a Disbursement Voucher that the materials supplied by VMGCS were received in good condition, leading to the payment of P83,228.00 to VMGCS owner Virginia Guadines. The Commission on Audit later disallowed P70,924.00 of this payment, representing the value of the confiscated lumber, which was never refunded.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Escara is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction. For a violation of Section 3(e), the act must be done with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury to the government. The Court found the presence of evident bad faith, which denotes a deliberate intent to do a wrongful act.
The legal logic rests on petitioner’s certifications. He certified that the lumber delivered by VMGCS was in good order and condition, facilitating full payment. However, the lumber actually used was the confiscated, undocumented lumber, not the newly purchased materials. His certifications were therefore false. The Court rejected his defense of relying on subordinates’ reports, as the Arias doctrine does not apply when the official had reason to suspect irregularities. Here, the proximity of the confiscation to the project and the official reports should have alerted him to verify the materials. By failing to do so and certifying falsely, he acted with conscious indifference to a wrongful outcome, constituting evident bad faith in conspiracy with his co-accused to cause undue injury to the provincial government. The penalty of imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office was upheld.