G.R. No. 166967 , 166974 & 167167; January 28, 2013
EDNA J. JACA, ALAN C. GAVIOLA, and EUSTAQUIO B. CESA, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, all appointive officials of the Cebu City government, were convicted by the Sandiganbayan for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The case stemmed from a surprise audit revealing a cash shortage of over P18 million incurred by paymaster Rosalina Badana. The audit found that Badana was allowed to obtain new cash advances despite having massive prior unliquidated cash advances, in violation of COA rules and Presidential Decree No. 1445.
The prosecution alleged that petitioners, in their respective capacities as City Accountant (Jaca), City Treasurer (Cesa), and City Administrator (Gaviola), along with the Chief Cashier, acted with gross inexcusable negligence. Their failure to enforce the mandatory rule against granting new advances before liquidating prior ones facilitated Badana’s ability to accumulate and misappropriate funds. Each petitioner certified or approved the disbursement vouchers and checks for Badana’s cash advances despite this glaring violation.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 through gross inexcusable negligence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, finding petitioners guilty. The legal logic rests on establishing the elements of the crime through gross inexcusable negligence. For Section 3(e), the accused must be a public officer who, in the discharge of official functions, causes undue injury or gives unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Here, the Court found the third mode—gross inexcusable negligence—present.
Gross inexcusable negligence implies a palpable breach of duty or a reckless disregard of consequences. The Court held that petitioners, as high-ranking finance officers, had a non-delegable duty to ensure strict compliance with laws governing cash advances. COA Circular No. 97-002 explicitly prohibited granting new advances if previous ones remained unliquidated. By certifying or approving the vouchers without verifying Badana’s liquidation status—a fact readily available in their records—petitioners exhibited a degree of negligence that was not merely simple but gross and inexcusable. Their collective failure to perform this basic checkpoint, which was central to their official functions, directly enabled the unwarranted benefit to Badana and the consequent injury to the government. The Court rejected their defense of reliance on subordinates, emphasizing that their statutory duties as heads of offices required personal diligence and could not be abdicated.