G.R. No. 212293, June 15, 2020
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. P/C SUPT. LUIS L. SALIGUMBA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case arose from the “chopper scam” involving the procurement of second-hand light police operational helicopters (LPOHs) for the Philippine National Police (PNP). Respondent P/C Supt. Luis L. Saligumba was a member of the Inspection and Acceptance Committee (IAC) and a signatory to IAC Resolution No. IAC-09-045. This resolution stated that the helicopters conformed with approved NAPOLCOM specifications and passed the acceptance criteria in the Weapons and Tactics and Communications Division (WTCD) Report, and recommended the PNP’s acceptance of the units. The Office of the Ombudsman found Saligumba guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Court of Appeals reversed this finding. The ponencia (majority decision) reinstates the Ombudsman’s ruling.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Saligumba is administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service based on his role as an IAC member and signatory to the resolution recommending acceptance of the helicopters.

RULING

The dissenting opinion votes to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The dissent argues that Saligumba’s liability for serious dishonesty has not been proven. It highlights that the CA found Saligumba, upon noticing irregularities in the WTCD Report (specifically on ‘endurance’ and ‘ventilating system’), sought clarification from the composite technical inspection team and relied on their recommendation and a memorandum from a pilot, PSupt. Larry Balmaceda. The dissent states that Saligumba acted in good faith by adhering to the 1998 PNP Procurement Manual, which provides that when an IAC member is unfamiliar with an item, inspection is referred to a technical committee. Good faith is presumed, and the Ombudsman failed to prove his reliance on the experts’ recommendation was tainted with bad faith. Dishonesty requires a question of intention—a concealment or distortion of truth—which was not present. Furthermore, the dissent finds that conspiracy among all persons involved in the procurement was not sufficiently shown, as conspiracy requires a clear conscious design to commit an offense.