A violation of procurement laws by public officers will not automatically result in a conviction under Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, according to the Supreme Court (SC).
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez, the Court said that all elements of graft must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not just the deficiencies in the procurement process.
In Navales v. People and Guillen v. People, the SC’s First Division acquitted petitioners of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019.
Administrative and criminal complaints were filed against the petitioners for bypassing the competitive public bidding mandated by Presidential Decree No. 1594, which outlines regulations for government infrastructure contracts.
The High Tribunal acquitted the petitioners, stating that “failure to follow procurement laws is not enough to prove graft unless there is evidence of malicious intent.”
It found that the petitioners, as members of the Pre-Bidding and Awards Committee-B (PBAC-B), merely recommended to the Davao City Water District (DCWD) Board the award of contract.
It was the DCWD Board, which had the authority to approve and award the contract to Hydrock, according to the SC.
While there might have been irregularities in the procurement process that violated procurement laws, there was no evidence showing petitioners were motivated by manifest partiality or bad faith.
The Court also noted that petitioners resorted to a negotiated contract believing it is allowed as an exceptional case given the urgency of the procurement and the lack of qualified bidders.
