The Supreme Court held that Rosalia Dugayon, as Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), was guilty of violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She was found to have conspired with a supplier to purchase secondhand typewriters at the price of new ones, causing financial injury to the government. The Court emphasized that direct evidence of conspiracy isn’t always required and that the convergence of actions indicating a common unlawful goal suffices.

Buying Old, Charging New: When Does a Public Official Cross the Line?

This case revolves around the procurement of typewriters by the DSWD Region 2 in 1989. Rosalia Dugayon, as Assistant Regional Director and Chairman of the Procurement Board, oversaw the purchase of 19 typewriters. The problem arose when the supplier, Jessie Callangan, delivered secondhand units while billing them as brand new. This discrepancy led to a Commission on Audit (COA) investigation, which revealed that the government paid P239,490 for typewriters that were only worth P141,800, causing undue injury amounting to P97,690. The question is whether Dugayon was simply negligent or knowingly participated in the fraudulent scheme.

The Sandiganbayan initially convicted Dugayon, Callangan, and another officer, but acquitted the Regional Director. The Court highlighted Dugayon’s role in certifying the disbursement vouchers and her membership on both the Procurement Board and the Inspection and Acceptance Committee as evidence of her participation. Despite the defects in the typewriters being reasonably detectable, Dugayon signed inspection reports that glossed over the quality issue, focusing solely on the quantity delivered. This level of involvement distinguished her case from those of officials who simply rely on the good faith of their subordinates, as outlined in cases like Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan.

Building on this, the Supreme Court emphasized the concept of conspiracy, noting that it doesn’t require direct proof. Circumstantial evidence indicating a coordinated effort towards a common unlawful goal is sufficient. The Court referred to Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, explaining that conspiracy can be inferred from the actions of individuals working towards the same unlawful object, where their acts, seemingly independent, are actually connected and cooperative. This convergence of actions implies a shared understanding and a mutual intent to deceive. In Dugayon’s case, her various roles and certifications directly contributed to the fraudulent transaction.

Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, outlines the offense:

SEC. 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:

(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.

The elements of this crime, as identified by the Court, include: (1) the accused are public officers or private persons in conspiracy; (2) they acted in their official capacity; (3) they caused undue injury to a party, like the government; (4) the injury stemmed from giving unwarranted benefits; and (5) the officers acted with manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence. Here, Dugayon met all these elements, as she was a public officer who caused financial injury to the government through her actions, which demonstrated, at the very least, evident bad faith.

The Court ultimately affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, underscoring that Dugayon’s actions weren’t mere negligence but constituted a breach of trust. Her high-ranking position amplified her responsibility to ensure the proper use of public funds. The failure to do so, coupled with the circumstances of the procurement, painted a clear picture of conspiracy and graft, reinforcing accountability among public officials. The repercussions serve as a cautionary tale on the severe consequences that arise when those in power fail to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Rosalia Dugayon conspired to defraud the government by purchasing secondhand typewriters at the price of new ones.
What law did Dugayon violate?	Dugayon was found guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
What evidence suggested Dugayon’s involvement in the conspiracy?	Her roles as Chairman of the Procurement Board and member of the Inspection Committee, along with her certification of disbursement vouchers, were cited as key evidence.
What does it mean to certify a disbursement voucher?	Certifying a disbursement voucher means confirming that expenses are necessary, lawful, and incurred under direct supervision. It also confirms that prices are reasonable and not exceeding current market rates.
How much money was lost due to the fraudulent transaction?	The government paid P239,490 for typewriters that were only worth P141,800, resulting in a loss of P97,690.
Did the Court require direct proof of conspiracy?	No, the Court clarified that conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, indicating a coordinated effort towards a common unlawful goal.
What is “evident bad faith” in legal terms?	Evident bad faith implies a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, conscious wrongdoing, and a furtive design or ill will to achieve ulterior purposes.
What was the significance of Dugayon’s position in this case?	As an Assistant Regional Director, Dugayon’s high-ranking position amplified her responsibility to ensure the proper use of public funds, making her actions a significant breach of trust.
What does it mean to be perpetually disqualified from public office?	Perpetual disqualification means that an individual is permanently barred from holding any government position due to their conviction of a crime.

This case demonstrates the importance of accountability and transparency in government procurement processes. It underscores the need for public officials to exercise due diligence and avoid actions that could lead to financial injury to the government. The Dugayon ruling sends a strong message that public office demands integrity, and breaches of trust will be met with severe consequences.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rosalina M. Dugayon v. People, G.R. No. 147333, August 12, 2004