G.R. No. 254886 , October 11, 2023
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERT G. LALA, PUREZA A. FERNANDEZ, AGUSTINITO P. HERMOSO AND GERARDO S. SURLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

Accused-appellants, public officers of DPWH Region 7 and a private contractor, were charged with violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft Law) concerning the negotiated procurement of lampposts for the ASEAN Summit. The Sandiganbayan acquitted them for one contract (SB-08-CRM-0270) but convicted them for another (SB-12-CRM-0006). The conviction centered on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated November 22, 2006, which authorized the contractor, GAMPIK, to proceed with the project before the public bidding was held on November 28, 2006. The Sandiganbayan ruled this MOU demonstrated manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence by pre-determining GAMPIK as the winning bidder, with the private appellant conspiring by signing the MOU.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the second element of Section 3(e) of RA 3019—that the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence—in relation to the execution of the MOU and the subsequent contract.

RULING

No. The conviction must be reversed, and accused-appellants acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. Justice Inting, in concurrence, emphasized that violations of RA 3019 are fundamentally anti-graft and corruption measures. The core of the offense is corrupt intent. While the act of executing an MOU prior to bidding is irregular, the prosecution failed to prove this act was motivated by a corrupt or ill motive necessary to establish manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence. The facts show GAMPIK was the lowest bidder for both contracts, the contract price was not proven overpriced, and GAMPIK was never paid. The MOU was conceived by a legal officer to expedite a time-sensitive project for an international event, not out of a clear predilection to favor or conscious indifference. Following Martel v. People, guilt under RA 3019 must be determined through the lens of corruption, not merely procurement irregularities. Without proof of corrupt intent, the element of manifest partiality or gross negligence remains unproven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence therefore prevails.