G.R. Nos. 219771 & 219773. September 18, 2018.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE-CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION GROUP (PNP-CIDG), PETITIONER, VS. P/SUPT. ERMILANDO VILLAFUERTE, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case arose from the anomalous procurement of second-hand helicopters presented as brand new to the Philippine National Police, known as the “chopper scam.” The PNP’s National Headquarters Bids and Awards Committee (NHQ-BAC) conducted a negotiated procurement for light police operational helicopters. Respondent P/Supt. Ermilando Villafuerte was the Legal Officer of the BAC Secretariat. His role involved drafting documents, including the Negotiation Committee Resolution, BAC Resolution, Supply Contract, and Notice to Proceed, all recommending the award to Manila Aerospace Products Trading (MAPTRA). An investigation later revealed that the delivered helicopters were not brand new as required.
The Office of the Ombudsman found Villafuerte administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Ombudsman ruled that the procurement was irregular, as MAPTRA was not a legally, technically, and financially capable supplier under Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act). It held that Villafuerte, by preparing the award documents, conspired in awarding the contract to an unqualified bidder. The Court of Appeals reversed this finding, absolving Villafuerte of administrative liability. The PNP-CIDG elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Ombudsman’s finding of administrative liability against respondent Villafuerte.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision absolving Villafuerte. The Court emphasized that in administrative cases, the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court found that the Ombudsman’s ruling was based on a presumption of conspiracy without substantial evidence to prove Villafuerte’s conscious participation in any irregularity.
The legal logic rests on the distinction between the mere ministerial preparation of documents and the exercise of discretionary authority. The evidence showed Villafuerte’s participation was limited to drafting documents upon the specific instructions of his superior, P/SSupt. Lurimer Detran, the Head of the BAC Secretariat. There was no proof that he exercised discretion in evaluating MAPTRA’s qualifications or that he knowingly facilitated a fraudulent award. His subsequent act of drafting a demand letter and complaint against MAPTRA upon another superior’s instruction further negated any dishonest intent. Without proof of malicious intent or conscious wrongdoing in the performance of his purely clerical and ministerial duties, the element of dishonesty was not established. Consequently, the administrative charges for Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service could not stand.