Key Takeaway: The Importance of Proper Procedure in Establishing Probable Cause in Public Procurement Cases

Jose M. Roy III v. The Honorable Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 225718, March 04, 2020

Imagine a scenario where a simple signature on a document could lead to criminal charges. This was the reality faced by Jose M. Roy III, the acting president of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), who found himself embroiled in a legal battle over the procurement of a vehicle. The central issue in this case was whether Roy’s actions constituted a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019), specifically Section 3(e), which deals with causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

In 2006, PLM sought to purchase a vehicle for its Open University Distance Learning Program. Roy, as acting president, approved the recommendation of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) to purchase a Hyundai Starex van through direct contracting, bypassing public bidding. This decision led to a complaint filed by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging violations of procurement laws and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Legal Context: Understanding Probable Cause and the Elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019

Probable cause is a critical concept in criminal law, representing the threshold level of evidence needed to justify the filing of a criminal case. In the context of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the Supreme Court has outlined three essential elements that must be present to establish a violation:

• The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions.
• The accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
• The action must have caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or given any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of the accused’s functions.

Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 states: “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.”

In everyday terms, this means that a public official can be held liable if their actions show a clear bias, bad faith, or extreme negligence that results in harm or unfair advantage. For example, if a government official consistently awards contracts to a single supplier without proper justification, this could be seen as manifest partiality.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Jose M. Roy III

The case began when Dean Domingo B. Nuñez requested the purchase of a specific vehicle for PLM’s distance learning program. After the request was approved by then-President Benjamin G. Tayabas, Supply Officer Alfredo C. Ferrer suggested purchasing a Hyundai Starex van, as it met the required specifications. Roy, who was appointed acting president in February 2006, signed the BAC’s recommendation for direct contracting and the subsequent purchase order.

The Commission on Audit (COA) later issued a Notice of Suspension in 2010, highlighting several irregularities in the procurement process, including the lack of approval from the Board of Regents and the use of direct contracting without proper justification. This led to the FIO’s complaint against Roy and other PLM officials in 2013, alleging violations of procurement laws and R.A. No. 3019.

The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Roy and his co-respondents in 2015, but Roy challenged this decision in the Supreme Court. The Court’s analysis focused on whether Roy’s actions met the second and third elements of Section 3(e):

• “Manifest partiality” is present when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to support one side or person rather than another.
• “Evident bad faith” means not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Roy’s favor, stating, “Here, it is indisputable that the first element is present, petitioner being the acting president of PLM. However, the second and third elements are lacking.” The Court emphasized that Roy’s role was limited to approving the BAC’s recommendation, and there was no evidence of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Practical Implications: Navigating Public Procurement and Criminal Liability

This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to proper procurement procedures and the high threshold for establishing probable cause in criminal cases involving public officials. For businesses and government agencies, it highlights the need for transparency and justification in procurement decisions, especially when opting for alternative methods like direct contracting.

Individuals in public office should be cautious when approving procurement recommendations, ensuring they have sufficient evidence and justification for their decisions. The case also serves as a reminder that a mere signature on a document does not automatically imply criminal intent.

Key Lessons:

• Public officials must ensure that procurement processes are transparent and justified, especially when deviating from public bidding.
• The burden of proof for establishing probable cause in criminal cases is high, requiring clear evidence of bias, bad faith, or negligence.
• Administrative decisions do not necessarily bind criminal proceedings, and the evidence required for each can differ significantly.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is probable cause in the context of criminal law?

Probable cause is the level of evidence needed to justify the filing of a criminal case. It requires sufficient facts to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is responsible.

What are the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019?

The elements include: the accused being a public officer, acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, and causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits.

Can a public official be held criminally liable for approving a procurement recommendation?

Yes, but only if their actions meet the stringent criteria of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Mere approval without evidence of bias, bad faith, or negligence is insufficient.

What should public officials do to avoid criminal liability in procurement?

Public officials should ensure transparency, follow proper procedures, and have clear justification for procurement decisions, especially when using alternative methods.

How does this case affect future procurement practices in the Philippines?

This case reinforces the need for strict adherence to procurement laws and procedures, emphasizing the importance of justification and transparency in decision-making.

ASG Law specializes in public procurement and criminal law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.