[ G.R. No. 243897. June 08, 2020 ] 873 Phil. 664
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 243897. June 08, 2020 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAQUEL AUSTRIA NACIONGAYO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this ordinary appeal[1] is the Decision[2] dated December 7, 2018 and Resolution[3] dated December 18, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan (SB) in Crim. Case No. SB-16-CRM-0085, which found accused-appellant Raquel Austria Naciongayo (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019,[4] entitled the “Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.”
The Facts
The instant case stemmed from an Information[5] charging accused-appellant with violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on January 5, 2006, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Raquel Austria Naciongayo, holding the item of City Government Department Head II and being the Head of City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), office of the City Mayor, Pasig City, (Salary Grade 26), while in the discharge of her official functions, committing the offense in relation to her office, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to Enviserve[,] Inc., by procuring its services for the conduct of an environmental congress for a capacity building training for Environment Protection Officers from factories and industries in Pasig City without the required competitive public bidding in violation of Sec. 10 of R.A. 9184 that enabled Enviserve, Inc. to collect the amount of One Thousand Seven Hundred Pesos (P1,700.00) and Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) for the 2006 and 2007 environmental congress, respectively, as participants’ registration fees and by requiring a certificate of participation therefrom as a requisite for securing Environmental Permit and renewal of Business Permit to Operate thereby unduly benefiting Enviserve, Inc., to the exclusion of other service providers, to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public interest. CONTRARY TO LAW.
The prosecution alleged that on January 5, 2006, accused-appellant, acting in her official capacity as City Government Department Head II of the City Environment and Natural Resources Office of Pasig City (Pasig CENRO), procured the services of Enviserve, Inc. (Enviserve) by accepting the latter’s proposal to organize and conduct a training seminar known as the “Environmental Industrial and Commercial Congress” (Environmental Congress) for the purpose of providing Pasig CENRO personnel and business establishments in the city with technical knowledge on topics related to environmental protection, e.g. pollution prevention, waste reduction, recycle management, environmental policy, and sewage operation, in exchange for the payment of registration fees from the participants.[6] The proposal includes the following, to wit:
One day training/seminar with focus on pollution prevention; waste reduction, reuse, recycle management; industrial energy efficiency; environmental natural laws and policies; and sewerage treatment plan maintenance and operation. Participating manufacturing companies in Pasig City shall pay corresponding registration fees. Technical experts and resource persons who will provide the training. Certificate of Participation. Free training for [ten (10)] CENRO Staff.[7]
According to the prosecution, accused-appellant’s act of entering into the foregoing transaction with Enviserve on behalf of the Pasig City Government is tainted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, as she procured the latter’s services without first conducting a competitive bidding, and despite knowledge of its lack of legal personality, as the company was incorporated only on November 22, 2006, i.e., after the contract between the parties was perfected. Furthermore, the prosecution pointed out accused-appellant’s supposed close ties to Enviserve considering that: (a) she ordered one of her staff to register the company’s articles of incorporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); (b) her father was the one who stood as speaker for the events held by Enviserve; (c) her sister, Aileen Shirly Austria, was one of the incorporators of the company; and (d) accused-appellant herself was made the contact person of Enviserve, as listed in its General Information Sheet submitted to the SEC.[8] Subsequently, accused-appellant then required respective representatives from each business establishment in Pasig City to attend the Environmental Congress by enjoining the attendance thereof as a mandatory requirement for the issuance of an Environmental Permit to Operate from her office, which, in turn, was necessary to secure or renew a business permit from the Pasig City Government. As above-stated, the Environmental Congress eventually took place on December 19, 2006 and June 14, 2007, with accused-appellant’s father serving as a speaker on both occasions.[9] In defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against her, claiming that she collaborated with Enviserve in good faith, and that, at the time of the alleged incident, her office had no budget for conducting seminars on environmental matters, and the latter was the only one who made an offer and submitted a proposal to conduct the same at no cost to the Pasig City Government.[10]
The SB Ruling
In a Decision[11] dated December 7, 2018, the SB found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of one (1) year and one (1) month, as minimum, to three (3) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office.[12] Giving credence to the evidence presented by the prosecution, the SB found that accused-appellant, as head of the Pasig CENRO, through manifest partiality and evident bad faith, gave Enviserve unwarranted benefit, advantage, and preference, considering that she procured the latter’s consultancy services: (a) without competitive bidding; (b) with knowledge of Enviserve’s lack of legal personality; and (c) despite her close ties to the latter.[13] Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration,[14] which was denied in a Resolution[15] dated December 18, 2018; hence, this appeal.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is without merit. Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 states:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. – In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: x x x x (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. x x x x
Verily, the elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 are as follows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.[16] As will be explained hereunder, the Court agrees with the findings of the SB that all the elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt in this case. As to the first element, it is undisputed that at the time the crime was committed, accused-appellant was a public officer acting in her official capacity as City Government Department Head II of the Pasig CENRO. As to the second element, it must be noted that there are three (3) means of committing the crime charged — i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence – and proof of any of these in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 is enough to convict.[17] In Coloma, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[18] the Court defined the foregoing means of commission as follows:
“Partiality” is synonymous with “bias” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.” “Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.” “Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but [willfully] and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property."[19]
In this case, accused-appellant acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith in the procurement of Enviserve’s consultancy services, having accepted the latter’s proposal to organize and conduct the Environmental Congress notwithstanding: (a) the absence of a competitive bidding; (b) her knowledge that Enviserve was operating as a corporate entity without proper SEC registration; and (c) her close ties to Enviserve – being listed as the contact person in the latter’s corporate cover sheet, and the one who ordered the registration of its articles of incorporation, as well as her sister being one of its incorporators.[20] As to the third and last element, case law instructs that “there are two ways by which a public official violates Section 3 (e) of [RA] 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or both. The disjunctive term ‘or’ connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3 (e) of [RA] 3019. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction."[21] Here, accused-appellant’s act of procuring Enviserve’s services without the requisite competitive bidding pursuant to RA 9184[22] gave the latter unwarranted benefits, advantage, and preference, especially considering that the latter was able to derive income through the collection of registration fees from business establishments in Pasig City.[23] In insisting on her innocence, accused-appellant argues that the requirement of competitive bidding does not apply to the transaction in question, as she merely accepted Enviserve’s proposal to organize and conduct the Environmental Congress, which was made without cost to the Pasig City Government.[24] Accused-appellant’s arguments are untenable. Section 10,[25] Article IV, in relation to paragraphs (n) and (o), Section 5,[26] Article I, of RA 9184, mandates that “all acquisition of goods, consulting services, and the contracting for infrastructure projects by any branch, department, office, agency, or instrumentality of the government, including state universities and colleges, government-owned and/or -controlled corporations, government financial institutions, and local government units shall be done through competitive bidding."[27] “This is in consonance with the law’s policy and principle of promoting transparency in the procurement process, implementation of procurement contracts, and competitiveness by extending equal opportunity to enable private contracting parties who are eligible and qualified to participate in public bidding."[28] Notably, Section 4 of the law itself states that it applies to the “Procurement of Infrastructure Projects, Goods and Consulting Services, regardless of the source of funds x x x”; to wit:
Section 4. Scope and Application. — This act shall apply to the Procurement of Infrastructure Projects, Goods and Consulting Services, regardless of source of funds, whether local or foreign, by all branches and instrumentalities of government, its departments, offices and agencies, including government-owned and/or -controlled corporations and local government units x x x. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Here, accused-appellant’s acceptance of Enviserve’s proposal, on behalf of the Pasig City Government, to organize and conduct the Environmental Congress, as well as to provide technical experts and resource persons for such purpose, amounted to a “procurement” of “consulting services,” as respectively defined under paragraphs (i) and (aa), Section 5 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9184.[29] Particularly, the primary purpose of the agreement, which was for Enviserve to train and equip Pasig CENRO personnel and business establishments operating in the city with specialized knowledge on topics related to environmental protection, falls within the definition of “design and execution of training programs,” one of the recognized kinds of consulting services, as provided under Item 6, Annex “B” of the aforementioned IRR.[30] Notably, the Court observes that the Environmental Congress was organized and conducted under the authority of the Pasig City Government, given for the benefit of Pasig CENRO personnel and business establishments operating in the city.[31] The proposal to conduct the same was addressed to the Pasig CENRO, and was accepted by accused-appellant in her official capacity as head of the aforementioned office.[32] Such finding is further bolstered by accused-appellant’s directive to enjoin attendance in the event as a mandatory requirement for businesses to successfully obtain an Environmental Permit to Operate from her office.[33] Hence, as a procurement of consulting services made for the benefit of the Pasig City Government as a procuring entity, the transaction in question fell within the scope of RA 9184, and absent the applicability of any of the recognized exceptions to such rule,[34] as in this case,[35] the same should have been the subject of a competitive bidding. In fine, accused-appellant’s acts as a public officer, which as previously discussed, were made with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, allowed Enviserve to unduly derive unwarranted benefit, advantage, and preference from the transaction. Therefore, the Court finds no reason to overturn the SB’s findings, as there was no showing that the court a quo overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.[36] It bears pointing out that the SB was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties.[37] As such, accused-appellant’s conviction for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 must stand. Finally, there is a need to adjust the penalty imposed by the SB. Section 9 (a)[38] of RA 3019, as amended, provides that a violation of Section 3 of the same law shall be punished with, inter alia, “imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years” and “perpetual disqualification from public office.” Applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused-appellant should be sentenced with the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, together with the aforementioned perpetual disqualification from public office. WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated December 7, 2018 and the Resolution dated December 18, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case No. SB-16-CRM-0085 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that accused-appellant Raquel Austria Naciongayo is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office. SO ORDERED. Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan,* JJ., concur.