SC acquits Davao Water District execs of graft over procurement violation | ABS-CBN

ADVERTISEMENT

dpo-dps-seal
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!

SC acquits Davao Water District execs of graft over procurement violation

Adrian Ayalin,

ABS-CBN News

Clipboard

MANILA — The Supreme Court acquitted Davao City Water District executives Arnold Navales, Rey Chavez, Rosindo Almonte, Alfonso Laid and Willam Guillen who were earlier convicted of graft by the Sandiganbayan for violation of procurement rules. 

In the decision of the 1st Division promulgated on October 3, 2024, the high court stressed that a violation of procurement laws by public officers will not automatically result in a conviction under Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 

The high court granted the petitions for review on certiorari filed by the accused because not all the elements of the crime were proven. 

The case stemmed from the award of a drilling project to Hydrock Wells, Inc. through a negotiated contract instead of competitive public bidding. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The Supreme Court found that the petitioners merely recommended the approval of the project to the DCWD Board and there was no showing that they were motivated by manifest partiality or bad faith, one of the elements that need to be proven in a graft case. 

“Verily, petitioners cannot be guilty under the third element as there is reasonable doubt that they intentionally gave Hydrock unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Midas Marquez. 

The court noted that the Sandiganbayan convicted the accused for giving a private party an unwarranted benefit or advantage but it was not shown that they gave unjustified favors to Hydrock. 

“To the court, their failure of the accused 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,” the court said.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.