G.R. No. 235418, March 03, 2021
ANTONIO M. SUBA, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN FIRST DIVISION AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio M. Suba was the Acting Vice President for Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul Service of the Philippine Aerospace Development Corporation (PADC). Together with PADC President Roberto R. Navida, he requested travel authority from the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to attend a conference in Beijing, China, from October 10 to 14, 2006. This request was denied by DOTC Assistant Secretary Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz in a letter dated September 19, 2006, citing a suspension on foreign travels and lack of supporting papers. Despite this denial, Suba requested and received cash advances totaling P241,478.68, which were approved by Navida. Suba and Navida proceeded to attend the conference. The Commission on Audit later issued a Notice of Disallowance holding them liable for the amount. Suba paid the disallowed amount in full on September 12, 2014. An Information was filed charging Suba and Navida with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly causing undue injury to the government by proceeding with the trip and using government funds without the required travel authority. The Sandiganbayan found Suba guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office. Navida’s case was dismissed due to his death. Suba filed this petition arguing the elements of the crime were not proven, the Information was defective, and his constitutional rights were violated.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly found petitioner Antonio M. Suba guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision and acquitted Antonio M. Suba. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Information charged Suba with causing undue injury to the government. However, the Sandiganbayan convicted him based on a different modality—giving unwarranted benefits to a private party—which was not alleged in the Information. This violated Suba’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Furthermore, the Court found that the element of “undue injury” was not sufficiently established. The government suffered no pecuniary loss as the funds were actually used for the official conference and Suba had fully reimbursed the amount. The Court also found that the prosecution failed to prove the third element—that the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Suba acted under the directive of his superior, Navida, who assured him that travel authority had been secured. Suba’s reliance on this assurance and the subsequent approval of cash advances and travel by the PADC Board of Directors negated a finding of criminal intent or gross negligence. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and since it failed to discharge this burden, Suba is entitled to an acquittal.