G.R. No. 255567 , January 29, 2024
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIANA ACUIN VILLASIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

This is a dissenting opinion in a case where the majority acquitted accused-appellant Juliana Acuin Villasin, the Municipal Mayor of Barugo, Leyte. The case stemmed from an Audit Observation Memorandum by the Commission on Audit flagging the municipality’s failure to comply with procurement rules in its procurement of fertilizers from Bal’s Enterprises. The transaction was covered by an undated and unnumbered disbursement voucher and a check dated May 26, 2004. The Sandiganbayan observed irregularities, including specifying the fertilizer brand in the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid (IAEB), posting the IAEB without the knowledge of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), lack of supporting bidding documents, preparation of the Purchase Request by the Mayor’s Office, and pursuing direct contracting as an alternative procurement method without the requisite BAC Recommendation. Villasin maintained that the fertilizers were delivered to beneficiaries, negating bad faith, and claimed any negligence was not gross. She asserted she insisted on regular procedure, relied on subordinates (invoking the Arias doctrine), and that non-compliance was due to Republic Act No. 9184 being newly enacted.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant Juliana Acuin Villasin is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

RULING

The dissenting opinion votes to DISMISS the appeal and AFFIRM the conviction. It holds that all elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are present. First, Villasin is a public officer. Second, her patent failure to comply with procurement rules and regulations constitutes gross inexcusable negligence, characterized by a want of even slight care and a conscious indifference to consequences, not simple neglect. The irregularities were not mere procedural lapses but a flagrant and palpable breach of duty. Third, her actions gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to a private party (Bal’s Enterprises). Proof of the extent of damage is not essential for this punishable act; it is sufficient that unjustified favor was given. The dissenting opinion rejects Villasin’s defenses, finding her failure to ensure strict compliance with procurement laws, as the head of the procuring entity, amounts to gross inexcusable negligence. Public officers must follow procurement rules to the letter to ensure the government’s resources are maximized for the common good.