G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000; November 27, 2013
DR. ROGER R. POSADAS and DR. ROLANDO P. DAYCO, Petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Dr. Roger Posadas was Chancellor of UP Diliman. He initiated the creation of the UP Technology Management Center (TMC) and secured foreign funding for its projects. In October 1995, he traveled abroad and formally designated Dr. Rolando Dayco, the Vice-Chancellor for Administration, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Chancellor. On his last day as OIC, Dr. Dayco appointed Dr. Posadas as Project Director and Consultant for the TMC Project, with the appointments retroactive to September 1995. The UP Diliman Legal Office later confirmed the authority of Dr. Dayco to make these appointments. Initially, the COA Resident Auditor suspended related payments but lifted the suspension after accepting the legal opinion.
Subsequently, an administrative complaint was filed against both petitioners. The Sandiganbayan later convicted them of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Section 7(b) of R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct for Public Officials). The court found that Dr. Dayco, as OIC, acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith in appointing Dr. Posadas, who was then absent, thereby causing undue injury to the government. The Supreme Court initially affirmed this conviction in a July 17, 2013 Decision, prompting the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioners Dr. Posadas and Dr. Dayco for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the motions for reconsideration and ACQUITTED the petitioners. The prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The Court held that the element of “bad faith” was not established. Bad faith requires a dishonest purpose or conscious wrongdoing, not mere bad judgment. The petitioners, both academics, acted in good faith, relying on the subsequent validation by the UP Legal Office and the COA Auditor’s lifting of the suspension. Their unfamiliarity with intricate civil service rules did not equate to fraud.
Furthermore, the element of “manifest partiality” was absent. Dr. Posadas was the most qualified candidate, having conceptualized and secured funding for the TMC Project. His appointment was logical and not indicative of unwarranted favoritism. Finally, the element of “undue injury” to the government was not proven with the required certainty. The prosecution did not establish actual damage, as the disallowed payments were deducted from Dr. Posadas’s terminal benefits, and there was no evidence he did not perform the services for which he was compensated. Consequently, all essential elements of the crime remained unproven.