SC acquits ex-DCWD officials of graft

DAVAO CITY (MindaNews / 10 November) — The Supreme Court has acquitted five former officials of Davao City Water District (DCWD) of graft charges, reversing the 2015 decision of Sandiganbayan’s Special Third Division to convict them of the crime.

In an 18-page decision authored by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, the Court found Arnold D. Navales, Rey C. Chavez, Rosindo J. Almonte, Alfonso E. Laid, and William V. Guillen, not guilty of Section 3(e) of the Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act.

Navales, Chavez, and Guillen were the DCWD’s Pre-Bidding and Awards Committee-B (PBAC-B) memberwhile, Almonte was the division manager of the engineering and construction department and Laid, the assistant general manager for administration.

They were convicted for allegedly not observing the proper bidding procedure under Presidential Decree No. 1594, the law that provides for regulations for government infrastructure contracts, in the agreement that DCWD entered in 1997 with Hydrock Wells, Inc. for the drilling phase of its water supply project.

The PBAC-B allegedly “waived the advertisement requirement for bidding and instead invited accredited well drillers to participate in the project.”

The DCWD Board ultimately awarded the contract to Hydrock.

The ruling, promulgated on August 7 but published on the Supreme Court’s website on October 8, stated that failure to follow procurement laws does not ipso facto lead to a violation of Section 3(e) R.A. 3019, “unless there is evidence of malicious intent.”

Section 3(e) penalizes any unlawful act or omissio “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.”

The high court added that the former executives only made recommendations to the DCWD Board, the body authorized to approve contracts.

“While there might have been irregularities in the procurement process that constitute as violations of procurement laws, there was no evidence to prove that petitioners (former DCWD officials) were especially motivated by manifest partiality or evident bad faith,” it added.

It stressed that the officials “assert their honest belief that their resort to negotiated contract was permitted for being among the recognized exceptions under the Section 4 of PD1594,” particularly “in exceptional cases where time is of the essence, or where there is lack of qualified bidders or contractors, or where there is conclusive evidence that greater economy and efficiency would be achieved through this arrangement.”

The high court noted that there was poor participation of well drillers in bidding invitations for well drilling projects, there was a public outcry for water among residents, resulting in street demonstrations, and there was a water crisis at the time the agreement was entered.

“To the Court, their failure to conduct competitive public bidding was driven not by an evil or corrupt motive, but by an honest, albeit mistaken, notion that a negotiated contract was permissible under the circumstances,” it said. (Antonio L. Colina IV / MIndaNews)