Bustillo vs. People

A public officer charged under Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 is entitled to acquittal where the prosecution proves only the status of the accused as public officers but fails to establish the remaining elements — that the prohibited acts were committed in relation to official duties, that undue injury was caused, that unwarranted benefits or preference were given, and that the officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence — particularly where the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties remains unrebutted.

Congressman Ceferino Paredes, Jr. allocated a portion of his Countryside Development Fund (CDF) to purchase vehicles for the Municipality of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, to support the planning, monitoring, and coordination of waterworks projects throughout the Province of Agusan del Sur. Under a Memorandum of Agreement dated February 10, 1993, the San Francisco Water District (SFWD) was designated to implement, control, or supervise all CDF-funded waterworks projects in the province. The vehicles — one Toyota Tamaraw FX and six Kawasaki motorcycles — were registered in the name of the Municipality of Bunawan and turned over to the municipality through its Mayor, petitioner Anuncio C. Bustillo. The dispute arose when the municipal officials transferred these vehicles without cost to SFWD, a move subsequently disapproved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur for allegedly violating Section 381 of the Local Government Code (RA No. 7160), which governs transfers of property that has become unserviceable or is no longer needed.

Congressman Ceferino Paredes, Jr. used a portion of his Countryside Development Fund (CDF) to purchase one unit of Toyota Tamaraw FX and six units of Kawasaki motorcycles, all registered in the name of the Municipality of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, and turned over to the municipality through its Mayor, petitioner Anuncio C. Bustillo. Under a Memorandum of Agreement dated February 10, 1993, the San Francisco Water District (SFWD) was designated to implement, control, or supervise all CDF-funded waterworks projects located throughout the Province of Agusan del Sur.

On May 17, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bunawan passed Resolution No. 95-27, authorizing the transfer without cost of the vehicles to SFWD. Vice-Mayor Agustin Billedo, Jr. presided over the session as Presiding Officer but did not vote for the resolution's passage; it was unanimously approved by the Sangguniang Bayan members, including petitioner Emilio Sumilhig, Jr. Pursuant to the resolution, Bustillo executed a Deed of Transfer on June 19, 1995, in favor of SFWD, represented by its General Manager, Elmer T. Luzon. The vehicles were all newly purchased, serviceable, and in good running condition at the time of transfer, with a total value of ₱705,100.00.

On July 27, 1995, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur passed Resolution No. 183 disapproving the Sangguniang Bayan's Resolution No. 95-27 for being violative of Section 381 of RA No. 7160, which permits transfer without cost only of property that has become unserviceable or is no longer needed. On August 17, 1995, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Resolution No. 246, canceling and declaring the Deed of Transfer as null and void for being highly irregular and grossly violative of Section 381 of RA No. 7160. Thereafter, Municipal Mayor Leonardo Barrios, who succeeded Bustillo after the May 8, 1995 elections, sent a letter dated July 11, 1995, demanding the return of the vehicles. SFWD, through Acting Board Secretary Antonio Taotao, refused by letter dated July 16, 1995.

A complaint was filed on May 23, 1996, charging Bustillo, Billedo, Sumilhig, and other officials with violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019. The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao found probable cause, and an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on June 24, 1998. During pre-trial, both parties admitted the identities of the accused as public officers, the passage of Resolution No. 95-27, the execution of the Deed of Transfer, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval, the demand for return, and SFWD's refusal. On June 15, 1999, SFWD executed a Deed of Donation returning the vehicles to the Municipality of Bunawan, as the CDF-funded water projects had already been completed. The Sandiganbayan convicted Bustillo, Billedo, and Sumilhig, finding that they conspired to effect the transfer to the prejudice of the municipality in violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, while acquitting Luzon and Amador.

• Presumption of Regularity: Petitioners faulted the Sandiganbayan for finding them guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, maintaining that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties operated in their favor and was not rebutted by the prosecution.

• Elements of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019: Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 beyond reasonable doubt, specifically whether petitioners caused undue injury to the government, gave unwarranted benefits or preference to SFWD, and acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
• Presumption of Regularity: Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies in favor of the petitioners and whether it was rebutted by the evidence on record.

• Elements of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019: No. Only the first element — that the accused are public officers — was proven. The transfer was made in furtherance of the purpose for which the CDF funds were released, and no undue preference, unwarranted benefits, or evident bad faith was shown.
• Presumption of Regularity: Yes. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties prevailed, the prosecution having failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut it.

• Elements of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019: Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 requires proof of five elements: (1) the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) the prohibited acts were committed during the performance of official duties or in relation to public positions; (3) undue injury was caused to any party, including the Government; (4) such injury was caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference; and (5) the officers acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Only the first element was established — Bustillo as Mayor, Billedo as Vice Mayor, and Sumilhig as Sangguniang Bayan member were all public officers. The remaining elements were absent. The transfer of the vehicles to SFWD was made in furtherance of the purpose for which the CDF funds were released, namely, to help in the planning, monitoring, and coordination of waterworks projects throughout the Province of Agusan del Sur. The Deed of Donation expressly provided that the vehicles would be used for the same purpose for which they were purchased. SFWD was designated under a Memorandum of Agreement dated February 10, 1993, to implement, control, or supervise all CDF-funded waterworks projects, so the vehicles were donated not out of preference or unwarranted benefit but in recognition of SFWD's technical expertise. No evidence showed that petitioners were motivated by bad faith. Bustillo, as Mayor, was authorized by law to enter into contracts for and in behalf of the local government unit. Billedo, as Vice Mayor, merely acted as Presiding Officer and did not even vote for the passage of Resolution No. 95-27. Sumilhig was only one of the members who voted for its unanimous passage.

• Presumption of Regularity: It is disputably presumed that official duty has been regularly performed. This presumption may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty, but it prevails until overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, at which point it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption, and in case of doubt as to whether an officer's act was lawful or unlawful, construction should favor its lawfulness. The records failed to rebut the presumption; no evidence of bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence was presented. Accordingly, the presumption remained unrebutted and operated in favor of the petitioners.

• Elements of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 — The offense of violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 requires the concurrence of five elements: (1) the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) the prohibited acts were committed during the performance of official duties or in relation to public positions; (3) undue injury was caused to any party, including the Government; (4) such injury was caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference; and (5) the officers acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court applied this test and found that only the first element was proven, warranting acquittal.

• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties — It is disputably presumed that official duty has been regularly performed. The presumption may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty, but it prevails until overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption, and in case of doubt as to whether an officer's act was lawful or unlawful, construction should favor its lawfulness. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the presumption operated in favor of the petitioners, as the prosecution failed to present evidence of bad faith or irregularity.

• "It is disputably presumed that official duty has been regularly performed. In this case, this presumption remains unrebutted; hence, petitioners who were charged with violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019, deserve an acquittal." — This opening passage frames the ratio decidendi of the decision: the presumption of regularity, unrebutted by clear and convincing evidence, entitles the accused to acquittal.

• "The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption in rebutted, it becomes conclusive." — This passage articulates the canonical formulation of the standard for rebutting the presumption of regularity, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• "Clearly, the vehicles were donated to SFWD not because it was given any preference, unwarranted benefits or undue advantage, but in recognition of its technical expertise." — This statement explains why the element of unwarranted benefits or preference was not satisfied, tying the legal standard to the factual finding that the transfer served the purpose of the CDF-funded waterworks projects.

• Evangelista vs. People, 392 Phil. 449, 456 (2000) — Cited as the source of the five-element test for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019. The Court applied this formulation to determine that only the first element was proven.

• People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 106025, February 9, 1994, 299 SCRA 795, 799 — Cited for the doctrine on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, including the standard that the presumption prevails until overcome by clear and convincing evidence and that every reasonable intendment favors the lawfulness of the officer's act.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Defines the corrupt practice of causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court applied this provision by testing each of its five elements against the evidence and finding that only the first — the public officer status of the accused — was established.

• Section 381, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Governs the transfer without cost of property that has become unserviceable or is no longer needed to another government office or local government unit, subject to the approval of the sanggunian concerned and the head of the receiving entity. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur invoked this provision to disapprove Resolution No. 95-27 and nullify the Deed of Transfer, as the vehicles were newly purchased and serviceable, not unserviceable or unneeded.

Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Justice Arturo D. Brion, Justice Roberto A. Abad, and Justice Jose Portugal Perez concurred.