Bustillo v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Congressman Ceferino Paredes, Jr. utilized a portion of his Countryside Development Fund (CDF) to procure one Toyota Tamaraw FX and six Kawasaki motorcycles. These vehicles were registered under the Municipality of Bunawan and subsequently turned over to its mayor, petitioner Anuncio C. Bustillo. On May 17, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bunawan passed Resolution No. 95-27, authorizing the gratuitous transfer of these vehicles to the San Francisco Water District (SFWD). Mayor Bustillo executed a Deed of Transfer on June 19, 1995, in favor of SFWD. Procedural History: The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur subsequently disapproved Resolution No. 95-27 on July 27, 1995, and by Resolution No. 246 on August 17, 1995, canceled and declared the Deed of Transfer void for violating Section 381 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code). A complaint was filed on May 23, 1996, charging Bustillo, Vice-Mayor Agustin Billedo, Jr., and several Sangguniang Bayan members, along with SFWD officials, with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to prosecute, leading to an Information filed with the Sandiganbayan on June 24, 1998. The Sandiganbayan, in a Decision dated July 31, 2003, found petitioners Bustillo, Billedo, and Emilio Sumilhig, Jr. guilty, while acquitting other co-accused. Their motion for reconsideration was denied on November 6, 2003. The Petition: This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the Sandiganbayan's decision and resolution, faulting the court for finding the petitioners guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The petitioners argue that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was not rebutted and that the elements of the offense, particularly undue injury and evident bad faith, were not sufficiently proven. They contend that the transfer was made in furtherance of the CDF's purpose and that no unwarranted benefits were conferred upon SFWD.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners committed a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Whether the transfer of vehicles to the San Francisco Water District caused undue injury to the government or gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Sandiganbayan, acquitting the petitioners Anuncio C. Bustillo, Agustin Billedo, Jr., and Emilio Sumilhig, Jr., for failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: The Court reiterated the elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: (1) the accused are public officers; (2) they commit the prohibited acts during official duties or in relation to their positions; (3) they cause undue injury to any party or give unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference; and (4) they act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court found that only the first element was proven, as the petitioners were public officers at the time. However, the Court held that the other elements were not present. The transfer of vehicles was deemed to be in furtherance of the purpose for which the CDF funds were released, which was to aid in the implementation of waterworks projects. The transfer was made to ensure the success of these projects, and SFWD was designated to implement them, recognizing its technical expertise. The Court found no evidence of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Mayor Bustillo was authorized to enter into contracts, Vice-Mayor Billedo did not vote for the resolution, and Councilor Sumilhig was one of several who voted for it, which was unanimously approved by the Sangguniang Bayan. The Court emphasized that the petitioners were entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, which the prosecution failed to rebut with clear and convincing evidence. The presumption of regularity prevails unless overcome by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of lawfulness. On the alleged undue injury and unwarranted benefits: The Court found no undue injury to the government or unwarranted benefits conferred upon SFWD. The transfer was justified by the purpose of the CDF funds and the role of SFWD in implementing the water projects. The vehicles were intended to facilitate the completion of these projects, and SFWD's designation as the implementing agency was based on its technical expertise, not on any undue preference. The subsequent Deed of Donation returning the vehicles to the municipality further indicated that the initial transfer was not intended to permanently deprive the municipality of its property or to confer permanent advantage on SFWD. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the petitioners acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in effecting the transfer.
Main Doctrine
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties prevails unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Without proof of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, public officers cannot be convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.