People v. Dugayon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Region 2, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, initiated a project for the procurement of 19 typewriters. A Procurement Board, chaired by petitioner Rosalia M. Dugayon (Assistant Regional Director), was formed. After a bidding process where San Sebastian Marketing, represented by Jessie Callangan, won, State Auditor Judy Singson raised several deficiencies in the bidding process, including lack of notice to the Auditor's Office and failure to require bidder's bonds. Despite these concerns, the purchase proceeded, and San Sebastian Marketing made partial deliveries. The Inspection and Acceptance Committee, headed by Supply Officer Rogelio Hipolito, certified that the deliveries conformed to specifications. Payments were made to San Sebastian Marketing. Upon post-audit, the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed the vouchers/checks, finding that the 19 typewriters were not brand new but rebuilt and reconditioned, contrary to the intention to purchase brand new units. The COA informed the involved parties, including petitioner Dugayon, of the disallowance. Procedural History: Petitioner Dugayon, Jessie Callangan, Consolacion Arafiles, and Rogelio Hipolito were indicted for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Amended Information alleged that they conspired to purchase 19 second-hand, rebuilt, and reconditioned typewriters from Jessie Callangan for P239,490.00, when their actual cost was only P141,800.00, causing damage to the government. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Dugayon and Jessie Callangan, acquitted Consolacion Arafiles, and ordered the archiving of the case against Rogelio Hipolito who remained at-large. The Sandiganbayan denied their respective motions for reconsideration. Jessie Callangan's petition for review was denied by the Supreme Court for failure to file within the reglementary period. The Petition: Petitioner Rosalia M. Dugayon sought review of the Sandiganbayan's decision, assigning as errors the finding of conspiracy among her and her co-accused, and the sufficiency of the evidence to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She argued that as Assistant Regional Director, she relied on her subordinates and that the Arias doctrine should apply, absolving her from liability due to misplaced reliance in good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether there was a conspiracy to defraud the government involving the petitioner. Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated November 24, 2000, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conspiracy: The Court found that conspiracy was sufficiently established. Petitioner Dugayon's claim of reliance on subordinates, invoking the Arias doctrine, was rejected because she was not the head of office or the final approving authority to whom that doctrine is applicable. The Sandiganbayan acquitted the Regional Director (head of office), highlighting the distinction. Petitioner's role as Chairman of the Procurement Board and a member/signatory of the Inspection and Acceptance Committee, coupled with her signing of the disbursement vouchers and Reports of Inspection that were silent on the quality of the typewriters, indicated her active participation and awareness of the transaction's defects. Her denial of membership in the Inspection and Acceptance Committee was contradicted by the records showing her signature on the Reports of Inspection, and her admission of inspecting the deliveries and supervising subordinates. On the sufficiency of evidence for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding that the essential elements of the crime were present. Petitioner, as Assistant Regional Director, Chairman of the Procurement Board, and member/signatory of the Inspection and Acceptance Committee, accepted secondhand typewriters despite the requirement for brand new units and allowed payment at the price of new units. The Sandiganbayan's factual finding, based on the COA's Inspection Report, that the typewriters were secondhand, rebuilt, and reconditioned, was binding on the Supreme Court. This transaction defrauded the government, causing undue injury and giving unwarranted benefits to San Sebastian Marketing and Jessie Callangan, as the government paid P97,690 more than the actual cost of the rebuilt typewriters. Petitioner acted with evident bad faith, which imputes a dishonest purpose, conscious wrongdoing, and contemplates a furtive design or ulterior purpose, not merely bad judgment or negligence.
Main Doctrine
Public officers who cause undue injury to the government or give unwarranted benefits to private parties through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, in the discharge of their official functions, are liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Reliance on subordinates' recommendations does not absolve liability when the officer's participation indicates evident bad faith or conscious wrongdoing.