G.R. No. 202408 , 202409, 202412. June 27, 2018.
FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, ULAMA S. BARAGUIR, and DATUKAN M. GUIANI, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Farouk B. Abubakar, Ulama S. Baraguir, and Datukan M. Guiani were officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (DPWH-ARMM). They were charged with multiple counts of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in relation to the implementation of several infrastructure projects funded by a ₱615 million allocation. A Commission on Audit (COA) special audit team, acting on reports of irregularities, discovered several anomalies. These included the award of contracts without the required public bidding, as contractors had mobilized equipment days before the bidding was supposedly held. The audit also found advance payments for sub-base aggregates in violation of the Government Auditing Code, overpayments due to bloated accomplishment reports, and the award of an unnecessary contract for a detailed engineering survey.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to contractors through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction. The legal logic centers on the petitioners’ gross inexcusable negligence in the discharge of their official functions, which constitutes a violation under Section 3(e). The Court emphasized that rules on public bidding and the disbursement of funds are imbued with public interest, demanding a high degree of responsibility from officials. Petitioners, as senior officials, cannot invoke good faith reliance on subordinates when glaring irregularities existed that should have prompted further inquiry. The audit findings established that bidding procedures were blatantly circumvented, as equipment mobilization preceded the bidding dates. Furthermore, advance payments were issued contrary to explicit legal prohibitions. By approving and signing documents that facilitated these irregular transactions without exercising the requisite diligence, petitioners exhibited a conscious indifference to the consequences of their actions, amounting to gross negligence. This negligence directly caused undue injury to the government through financial loss and gave unwarranted benefits to the favored contractors. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, primarily the COA audit, to be credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the acts charged.