Understanding Evident Bad Faith in Graft Cases: Insights from Philippine Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court's decision in Buencamino v. People (G.R. Nos. 216745-46, November 10, 2020) offers important guidance on when a public officer may be held liable for graft under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019). The case underscores two critical principles: the prosecution must prove evident bad faith with moral certainty, and a conviction cannot rest on a mode of commission different from what was charged in the Information.

The Facts of the Case

Edmundo Jose T. Buencamino, then Municipal Mayor of San Miguel, Bulacan, was charged with two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The Informations alleged that, through evident bad faith, he caused undue injury to Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation (RMDC) by (1) collecting "pass way" fees of P1,000.00 per truck from RMDC's delivery trucks, and (2) ordering the apprehension and impounding of two RMDC trucks for failure to pay those fees.

The prosecution alleged that the collection had no legal basis because the municipal resolution supposedly authorizing it (Kapasiyahan Blg. 89A-055/Kautusang Bayan 029) had been declared null and void by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The Sandiganbayan convicted Buencamino, finding that he acted in evident bad faith and with gross inexcusable negligence.

The Issue

The sole issue was whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Buencamino of two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

The Ruling: Acquittal

The Supreme Court acquitted Buencamino, ruling that the prosecution failed on two fatal points.

First: Variance in the Mode of Commission

Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 penalizes a public officer who causes undue injury or gives unwarranted benefits through any of three distinct modes: (1) manifest partiality, (2) evident bad faith, or (3) gross inexcusable negligence.

The Informations charged Buencamino only with evident bad faith. However, the Sandiganbayan's conviction relied heavily on findings of gross inexcusable negligence—particularly his act of authorizing a private person, a former barangay captain, to collect the fees in violation of the Local Government Code.

The Court held that these are separate and distinct modalities. Evident bad faith entails the willfulness to do wrong, while gross inexcusable negligence entails a failure to exercise the required diligence. Citing Villarosa v. People, the Court emphasized that convicting an accused on a modality different from that charged violates the constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation. An allegation of only one modality necessarily excludes the others.

Second: Evident Bad Faith Not Proven

Even assuming no variance existed, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove evident bad faith. Evident bad faith requires a manifest deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage. The Court noted that the evidence showed Buencamino relied—albeit erroneously—on what he believed was a valid municipal resolution. He verified the existence of the fee with the Municipal Treasurer and the Sangguniang Bayan Secretary, both of whom confirmed it. There was no record that the disapproval of the resolution was ever transmitted to the municipality.

The Court also noted evidentiary problems, including the prosecution's reliance on hearsay documentary evidence such as photocopied reports and a police blotter entry. Even admitting all the documentary evidence, the Court found it showed only an honest but mistaken reliance on a defunct legal authority—not ill will or dishonest purpose.

Practical Takeaways

• The three modes under Section 3(e) are distinct. A charge of evident bad faith cannot morph into a conviction for gross inexcusable negligence. The Information must clearly state the mode, and the conviction must match it.
• Evident bad faith requires proof of deliberate intent. Mere error in judgment, even if negligent, does not amount to evident bad faith. The prosecution must show a manifest and intentional design to do wrong.
• Reliance on legal advice or official information can negate bad faith. A public officer who verifies the legality of an act with the proper offices and relies on their assurances may defeat a claim of evident bad faith.
• Hearsay evidence cannot sustain a graft conviction. Photocopies of reports and police blotter entries, without proper authentication or the testimony of their makers, carry little probative weight.
• The presumption of innocence prevails where evidence is ambiguous. When the prosecution's evidence admits of two or more explanations, the equipoise rule favors acquittal.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.