Sabio v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) entered into two Lease Agreements with United Coconut Planters Bank Leasing and Finance Corporation (UCPB Leasing) for the lease of motor vehicles: one in April 2007 for five vehicles totaling P5,393,000.00, and another in 2009 for six vehicles totaling P6,734,610.00. These lease agreements were executed without public bidding. Procedural History: The Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman filed criminal cases against PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio and other commissioners for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and R.A. 9184. Two Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 were filed before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the cases against Commissioners Javier, Nario, and Conti due to violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases. Commissioner Abcede passed away. Sabio was arraigned as the sole accused. The parties stipulated that Sabio was a public officer, Chairman of PCGG, and that UCPB is a sequestered company of PCGG. Sabio was also a director of UCPB and its subsidiary UCPB Leasing. The Sandiganbayan found Sabio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in both criminal cases. Sabio's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Sabio filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Sandiganbayan's decision. He argued that the PCGG, being sui generis, is exempt from procurement law requirements, and that as an alter ego of the President, he is immune from suit. He also claimed that entering into lease-purchase agreements was a prior practice, they had no personal gain, and the President did not disapprove his acts.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the PCGG, being sui generis, is exempted from the requirements of the Procurement Law. Whether or not Sabio, being an alter ego of the President, is immune from suit. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred or committed reversible error in finding petitioner Sabio guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious. The Decision and Resolution of the Sandiganbayan, dated June 22, 2017 and August 25, 2017, respectively, in Criminal Case Nos. SB-12-CRM-0014 to 0015 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of PCGG's exemption from procurement law: The Court held that R.A. No. 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act, explicitly applies to "ALL" procurement by "ALL" branches and instrumentalities of government, including attached agencies like the PCGG. The law's language is clear and unambiguous, mandating competitive bidding except as provided in Article XVI. Therefore, the PCGG is not exempted from these requirements. The petitioner's claim that the PCGG is sui generis and thus exempt lacks legal basis. The Court emphasized that where statutory language is clear, it must be given its literal meaning. The explicit inclusion of all government instrumentalities leaves no room for exceptions based on the nature of an agency. On the issue of Sabio's immunity from suit: The Court reiterated the doctrine that while the President is immune from suit during tenure, this immunity does not extend to his alter egos. The questioned acts were those of Sabio and the PCGG Commissioners, not the President himself. To grant immunity to alter egos simply because their acts are considered presidential acts if not repudiated would contradict the constitutional principles of accountability and good governance. Unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State, and the officer acting illegally is not acting as such but stands on the same footing as any other trespasser. Therefore, Sabio cannot claim immunity from suit based on his alleged status as an alter ego. On the issue of Sabio's guilt for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding of guilt. The elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were established: (1) Sabio was a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of his official functions as PCGG Chairman; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) Sabio caused undue injury to the government or gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. The Court found bad faith in Sabio's failure to undertake the required procurement process and in subjecting government funds to unnecessary expenditure without pre-allocation. Furthermore, Sabio's position as a director of UCPB, the parent company of UCPB Leasing, at the time of the lease agreements, bolstered the presence of unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference given to UCPB Leasing. His disregard for the law, despite the PCGG's mandate to institute corruption preventive measures, demonstrated a conscious doing of a wrong.
Main Doctrine
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) is not exempt from the requirements of the Government Procurement Reform Act (R.A. No. 9184), and its officials, including the Chairman, are not immune from suit for violations of said law, even if considered alter egos of the President. Entering into lease agreements without public bidding, especially when the PCGG Chairman is also a director of the parent company of the lessor, constitutes a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.