The breach of procurement regulations by public officials does not automatically result in a graft conviction- SC

 

The breach of procurement regulations by public officials does not automatically result in a graft conviction, the Supreme Court ruled.

In an 18-page decision promulgated on Aug. 7, 2024, the Supreme Court acquitted several officials of the Davao City Water District (DCWD) of charges under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act 

The officials, members of the DCWD’s Pre-Bidding and Awards Committee-B, were accused of bypassing mandatory public bidding procedures by recommending Hydrock Wells Inc. for a water supply project through a negotiated contract, which was subsequently approved by the DCWD Board.

According to the court, while some procurement procedures may have been bypassed, there was no evidence of bad faith or favoritism on the part of the petitioners.

The petitioners also opted for a negotiated contract, believing it was a permissible exception due to the urgency of the project and the limited number of qualified bidders, the court noted.

“It is imperative for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused violated the procurement law through evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence, thereby causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference,” the Court’s decision read.

Read the full story 

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/11/10/2399098/procurement-violations-dont-automatically-lead-graft-conviction-says-sc

RELATED 

Mala in se vs. mala prohibita

Mala in se felonies are crimes which are inherently immoral and such crimes are generally defined and penalized in the Revised Penal Code. However, even if a crime is punished by a special law, when the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea is a legal maxim which establishes a fundamental aspect of mala in se crimes, namely that "ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime."

Thus, the existence of a mala in se crime hinges on the concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea.

 Actus reus pertains to the external or overt acts or omissions included in a crime's definition, while mens rea refers to the accused's guilty state of mind or criminal intent accompanying the actus reus.

Hence, the classification of a crime as mala in se hinges not solely on the inherently wrong or depraved nature of the prohibited acts; it also requires that the penalizing law's language explicitly delineates the requisite mental element. Thus, in crimes mala in se, good faith and lack of criminal intent are available defenses.

On the other hand, in mala prohibita crimes, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral but become punishable only because the law says so. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated; criminal intent is not necessary, for the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy.

In mala prohibita crimes, there is no need to prove criminal intent, for the same is conclusively presumed to exist from the commission/omission of an act prohibited by law.

To hold the offender guilty or accountable for the offense, it is sufficient that there is a conscious intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. The essence of mala prohibita is voluntariness in the commission of the act constitutive of the crime.

G.R. No. 230147, February 21, 2024 ]

JUANITO GALLANO Y OBRAR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.