MIGUEL M. MEDIJA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVI­SION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Miguel Medija was indicted for violation of Section 3(e)
of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, in an Information quoted in the decision of respondent
court and which reads:

“That on or about the 25th day of March, 1985, in Zamboanga
City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
Engr. Miguel Medija, Jr. y Minoza, a public officer being then employed as Engineer A at the National
Irrigation Administration (NIA), Regional Office in Zamboanga City while in the
exercise or performance of his official function as such, AMONG WHICH
WAS TO CERTIFY TO THE ACTUAL CONDITION OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT DELIVERED TO
AND RECEIVED BY HIM IN BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION (NIA),
and taking advantage of his official position, conspiring and confederating
with the accused Rolando Manalo y Salvador, a private individual and
businessman/dealer of spare parts for light and heavy equipment, did then and
there wilfully and unlawfully cause undue injury to the government through
evident bad faith, by then and there certifying that a set (2 pcs.) of chain
assembly for Fiat Allis Dozer No. 497232 supplied and delivered by his
co-accused Rolando Manalo y Salvador was brand new by certifying that the same
was “okay as to quantity and specification” when in truth and in fact
said set (2 pcs.) was only a rebuilt one, thus making the government pay the
amount of P136,800.00 which is the cost of a brand new set of chain assembly
and which amount was actually paid to Rolando Manalo y Salvador, and thereby
giving unwarranted benefit and/or advantage to the latter to the prejudice of
the government.

Contrary to law.” (pp.
28-29, Rollo.)

After trial, following a plea of not guilty, Medija was convicted
and sentenced “to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for a
minimum of nine (9) years and one (1) day to a maximum of twelve (12) years and
to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office”. He was further ordered to pay the government,
by way of reimbursement of actual damage to it, the amount of One Hundred
Thirty Six Thousand Eight Hundred (P136,800.00) Pesos, and costs of suit (p.
53, Rollo).

Medija’s co-accused, Rolando Manalo, remained at large, the warrant for his arrest having been
returned unserved.

Medija has now resorted
to the instant petition and seeks reversal of the judgment of conviction upon
the following grounds.

“I. The
Honorable Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to
excess or lack of jurisdiction –

(A) In not finding and concluding that petitioner
was in good faith in the performance of his official duties, verbally assigned to him by his superior officers –

(B) In not finding and concluding that some other
personnel/official of the Zamboanga City NIA should have been grossly negligent
of duties and not the petitioner herein –

(C) In not finding and concluding that Rolando
Manalo y Salvador the lone private respondent should be made to answer for
his indiscretions and/or offense.

II – The Honorable
Sandiganbayan also committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of or
excess of jurisdiction by not having excluded from the information the
petitioner and/or by acquitting him of the charges.” (p. 10, Rollo)

The facts, as found by the trial court (pp. 16-17, Decision) and
adopted by Medija in his petition (p. 10, Rollo) are as follows:

“Accused Engr. Miguel Medija, Jr. was a Mechanical Engineer
employed as Engineer “A” of the Equipment Management Division, Region
IX of the NIA. Among his duties were to
conduct inspection, undertake evaluations and recommend schedules of
repairs. His duties were mainly
administrative in that he supervised the maintenance of equipment assigned to
the NIA Regional Office. His superiors,
at times, instructed him to conduct the inspection of certain equipment or
spare parts delivered, considering that he was the only Mechanical Engineer in
the Office.

On March 25, 1985, Engr. Laranjo instructed him to inspect one set
of a chain assembly consisting of two pieces. He complied with the instruction by comparing the assembly to a link
given by the Supply Officer, after which he wrote down in a report the result
of his inspection which is that the assembly was “O.K. as to quantity and
specification.”

On the same day, Mr. Severino Labio, OIC of NIA, made a written
request to the Commission on Audit for the inspection of the subject spare
parts. In response, the COA sent Engr.
Charles Bulac who made the inspection the next day. The result of his inspection was contained in a report addressed
to the Auditor, NIA Region IX, Zamboanga City, dated March 27, 1985, which
enumerated his findings and recommendations (Exhibit “F”).

In the NIA office, however, the disbursement voucher had been
prepared on March 25, 1985, but the check payment was prepared, and accounting
entries therefor passed, only on March 29, 1985.

The subject chain assembly was delivered to the Molave Office of
the NIA on March 30, 1985 by Mr. Paulino Castillo, a NIA driver. On April 8, 1985, Engr. Herculiano Judilla,
Jr., Senior Engineer “B” of the NIA, inspected the assembly, and made
a written report thereon which he submitted to Engr. Charlie Sabado (Exhibit
“D”).

The COA notified Mr. Labio (NIA-OIC) of Engr. Bulac’s report. Acting on it, Mr. Labio gave notice to the
supplier Aaron Enterprises of the discrepancy found on the chain assembly
purchased from it. In response, Aaron
Enterprises, through its proprietor, Mr. Manalo, undertook to replace the chain
assembly and requested that he be given ninety (90) days within which to do
so. The supplier failed to honor his
commitment, for which reason the bulldozer, for which the chain assembly was
intended, had remained inoperative up to the time of trial (pp. 37-38, t.s.n.,
January 15, 1990). (pp. 43-44, Rollo)

Medija was charged under Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019,
as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which
provides –

“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.

x x x

(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.”

In Ponce de Leon v. Sandiganbayan
(186 SCRA 745 [1990]) the Court enumerated the elements of this offense as
follows:

“(1) That the
accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;

(2) That said public officers commit the
prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation
to their public positions;

(3) That they cause undue injury to any
party, whether the Government or a private party;

(4) That such injury is caused by giving
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and

(5) That the public officers have acted with
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.”
(at p. 754)

It must be stressed that the information in this case charged
that Medija, conspiring and confederating with his
co-accused Rolando Manalo, caused undue injury to the government through
evident bad faith by certifying that a 2-piece set of
chain assembly for Fiat Allis Dozer No. 497232 supplied and delivered by his
co-accused “okay as to quantity and specification”; when in truth and in fact said set was only
a rebuilt one, thus making the
government pay the amount of P136,800.00 which is the cost of a brand new set
of chain assembly.

While the information charged “evident bad faith”,
respondent court found Medija guilty of “gross inexcusable
negligence”. Thus, respondent
court discussed Medija’s liability as follows:

“Accused Medija is a licensed Mechanical Engineer (p. 39,
t.s.n., Sept. 13, 1990). As such, he is
expected to be in a position to know
that strict specifications are required for the equipment to suit their intended purpose, and that the
checking of whether such specifications are met is part of the overall
inspection process which he was particularly tasked to do in connection with
the acceptance of the chain assembly.

In addition, the fact was
that the spare part he was to examine was of a very high cost (P136,800.00), as
indicated in the Inspection Report which he saw during, and which he signed
after, his inspection. Equally
significant was the fact that the bulldozer, for which the chain assembly was
intended to be used, cost even more, and this should have, therefore, caused
the accused to assume a much more critical posture in inspecting the chain
assembly set in question.

The combination of all
these facts required the accused Medija to be very careful and very thorough in
the inspection of the chain assembly. However, he not only failed to exert extra effort to this end; he
dispensed with even the simple procedural requirements given for ordinary
inspection. The accused was, therefore,
beyond doubt grossly negligent in his inspection of the chain assembly.
“In the case of public officials, there is negligence when there is a
breach of duty, or failure to perform an obligation, and there is gross
negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.” (Juan v.
Arias, 72 SCRA 404, p. 410). The
negligence of the accused in the case is unquestionably palpable.” (pp.
51-52, Rollo)

Also, the information charged conspiracy. But, significantly, the decision of
respondent court is silent on this point.

In Gomez v. Intermediate Appellate
Court (135 SCRA 620 [1985]) we stated:

“ ‘ ‘ ‘ that conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence. It cannot be based
on mere conjectures but must be established as a fact. The same degree of proof required to
establish the crime is necessary to support a finding of the presence of
conspiracy that is, it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as
the commission of the offense itself.”

To establish conspiracy, there must be evidence of intentional
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common
design or purpose. (People v. Agda, 111 SCRA 330
[1982]). His knowledge of the
conspiracy and his active and knowing participation therein must be proved by
positive evidence.

In the case at bar, no evidence was presented by the prosecution
to prove that Medija was indeed a part of a conspiracy to defraud the
government.

Apparently, the main and only reason for the judgment of
conviction is the “certification” of Medija. On the basis of this
“certification”, respondent court concluded that the government paid
the amount of P136,800.00 to the supplier. In other words, it was the finding of respondent court that without the
“certification” of Medija, the government would not have paid this
amount or should not have paid the supplier at all.

We are constrained to reverse respondent court’s finding and to
rule that this kind of evidence is too conjectural and presumptive to establish
personal culpability.

On the contrary, the evidence on record shows that the
“certification” was not the reason for the payment. It was established that on March 25, 1985
Medija actually saw and inspected the subject chain assembly, but it was
Orlando Villanueva, the Supply Officer, who prepared the report and accepted
the delivery of the parts. Under the
heading “Findings/Recommendations”, Medija wrote the words “O.K.
as to quantity and specification” which meant, according to him, that the
spare parts were intended for a Fiat-Allis bulldozer as far as the
specifications were concerned, and that they were of the correct number of
pieces (“quantity”), but he told his superior officer that the chain
assembly was not “brand new”. Aside from his signature on the inspection report, there was no other
paper upon which accused had affixed his signature.

It was likewise established that on March 26, 1985,
OIC Severino Labio of NIA, Zamboanga City requested Civil Engineer Charles
Bulac, of the COA, Zamboanga City, Region 9 to conduct a post-audit examination
of the subject chain assembly. As the
instruction was written and required Engr. Bulac to make a report and
recommendation thereon, Engr. Bulac complied and in his written report dated March
26, 1985, he found that the delivered chain assembly is not brand
new and not yet complete. OIC Labio
communicated with the supplier, accused Rolando Manalo who promised to replace
the chain assembly. Despite the
findings of Engr. Bulac and the failure of Rolando Manalo to replace the chain
assembly, the check for its payment was prepared on March 29, 1985,
and the rebuilt chain assembly was delivered to Molave, Zamboanga del Sur on March
30, 1985. There is
nothing in the record to show that Medija had any participation in the
preparation of the check and in the delivery of the chain assembly. Respondent court, without any clear factual
basis for doing so has assumed that Medija was part of an illegal scheme. It could not also be said, in the light of
the evidence on record, that had Medija not made the “certification”
the government would not have been defrauded. In the first place, why
did NIA pay the supplier, when it already knew beforehand that the chain
assembly delivered was not brand new? True, in making the inspection, Medija
should have been more careful. His lack
of care, however may be a ground for administrative action, but it does not
give rise to criminal culpability absent more evidence against him. There should be other grounds than the mere
“certification” to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction
thereunder. Was Medija part of the
planning, preparation and perpetration of the alleged conspiracy to defraud the
government. Did Medija profit from this
illegal scheme? The evidence on record is certainly very much wanting on these points. Besides, who were Medija’s co-conspirators?
Why were not the more responsible officers who had a hand in the preparation of
the purchase order and the requisition voucher, the preparation of the check
and its subsequent payment, the delivery and acceptance of the chain assembly,
not indicted?

Considering all   the
foregoing, we feel that Medija
cannot in fairness be held liable under the indictment. The evidence on record cannot sustain a
verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the
assailed   decision of the Sandiganbayan
is hereby SET ASIDE and Miguel M. Medija,
Jr. is acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Grino-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.