THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LIONEL ECHAVEZ BACALTOS, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Lionel Echavez Bacaltos, then Mayor of Sibonga, Cebu, was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The information alleged that in February 2015, he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and/or gross inexcusable negligence by willfully receiving a PHP 17,512.50 honorarium from the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) despite not being entitled to it, as the honorarium was exclusively intended for municipal health personnel, thereby causing undue injury to the government.
The charge stemmed from the implementation of the PhilHealth Primary Care Benefit (PCB) Package. The Municipal Health Office of Sibonga was a registered PCB provider, receiving incentives on a Per Family Payment Rate (PFPR). PhilHealth Circular No. 010, s. 2012 prescribed the allocation of the PFPR, stating that 20% shall be exclusively utilized as honoraria for the staff of the PCB facility, with 5% specifically allocated for “non-health professionals/staff, including volunteers and community members of health teams.” In February 2015, Bacaltos certified an Obligation Request for the release of the 20% honoraria. Based on the payroll summary, he received PHP 17,512.50, representing a 5% share. The Municipal Accountant annotated a reservation on the payroll that the payment was subject to PhilHealth’s existing rules.
Bacaltos admitted receiving the amount but asserted he acted in good faith, believing he was entitled to it as the municipal mayor exercising control and supervision over the Municipal Health Office and its personnel. The Sandiganbayan found him guilty, holding he acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality.
ISSUE
Whether accused-appellant Lionel Echavez Bacaltos is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, specifically whether his act of receiving the honorarium was done through manifest partiality or evident bad faith and caused undue injury to the government.
RULING
The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia’s decision to acquit accused-appellant Bacaltos. The elements of manifest partiality and evident bad faith under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
1. Evident Bad Faith was Absent: Evident bad faith requires a “palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose” or a “state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.” It partakes of the nature of fraud and requires a malicious motive or corrupt intent. Mere violation of a regulation is not automatically equivalent to evident bad faith. Bacaltos acted based on an honest, albeit erroneous, interpretation of the PhilHealth Circular. The circular’s provision was ambiguous, listing “non-health professionals/staff” and giving examples like volunteers and community health team members, but without a precise definition. As municipal mayor exercising control over the health office, his belief that he fell under this category was not entirely baseless or without rhyme or reason. This honest belief negates the wrongful or malicious intent (dolo) required for a finding of evident bad faith.
2. Manifest Partiality was Absent: Manifest partiality exists when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination to favor one side or person over another. The evidence did not show that Bacaltos exhibited any bias or preference for himself over others. There was no demonstration of a deliberate intent to favor his own interests through corrupt motives. His act of including himself in the payroll was based on his interpretation of the circular, not on a clear predilection to unduly benefit himself.
3. On Undue Injury: While the concurring opinion notes that the element of undue injury requires further discussion, it stresses that for liability under Section 3(e) to attach, the act causing injury must be done with fraudulent and corrupt intent. Since such intent was absent in this case, the issue of whether undue injury was sufficiently proven becomes moot.
Therefore, the concurring opinion concludes that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of manifest partiality and evident bad faith. The act, while possibly a violation of an administrative regulation, did not rise to the level of a criminal offense under R.A. No. 3019. Accused-appellant Lionel Echavez Bacaltos must be acquitted.
