Baylon v Ombudsman ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
GR No. 142738, 14 Dec 2001 themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person accused
FACTS:
In 1993, the Secretary of Health appointed petitioner Dr. Honorata
Baylon as the Program Manager of the Government's National
Voluntary Blood Donation Program which was one of the 6 new
programs included in the project “STOP D.E.A.T.H.: Hospitals for
Philippines 2000” which was discussed in a meeting on 3 Feb 1994. The
National Kidney and Transplant Institute (NKTI) was the lead agency
of the blood program.
On 3 Mar, Secretary Flavier issued a closure order on the provincial
retail outlets of commercial blood banks which led to an acute shortage
of blood available to the public as the commercial blood banks
intentionally refused to sell blood in retaliation to the closure order.
Thus, Sec. Flavier instructed the immediate implementation of the
voluntary blood donation system as the only alternative source of
blood.
The NKTI expedited the installation of the blood program. On 8 Mar,
NKTI decided to purchase Terumo blood bags for immediate
distribution to the regional hospitals and medical centers. NKTI
obtained a quotation of the prices of blood bags from FVA-Exim
Trading which is the exclusive distributor of Terumo blood bags.
The Resident Auditor Blesida Gutierrez of COA disallowed the
purchase of blood bags due to NKTI’s failure to conduct a public
bidding. It was averred that the cost of the bags was overpriced by
comparing the prices of the bags quoted by FVA with those of other
medical institutes, hence incurring a total loss of nearly P2M.
On 4 Feb 1997, a complaint-affidavit was filed with the Ombudsman
against Baylon and other DOH officials for violation of Sec. 3(e) and (g)
of RA 3019 and RA 6713. A panel composed of members of the
Evaluation and Preliminary Investigating Bureau issued a resolution
through Asst. Ombudsman Aportadera, Jr. to Ombudsman Aniano
Desierto the dismissal of the case. The Office of the Ombudsman,
however, disapproved the recommendation and approved a
memorandum recommending the prosecution of the criminal case
against petitioner.
Accordingly, the COA came to the following conclusions:
1. The purchase of the blood bags without public bidding is
not violative of PD 1594, RA 1760 and COA Circ. No. 85-
55A as they were to be used in connection with a project
that cannot be delayed without causing detriment to public
service and the materials are sold by an exclusive
distributor who does not have sub-dealers selling at lower
prices with no substitute;
2. To determine if the price is excessive, a canvass should
have been made by the auditor as required by COA Memo
No. 97-012, which it failed to do.
ISSUE:
W/N the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause
against Baylong and ordering their prosecution before the
Sandiganbayan.
HELD:
Yes. As a general rule, the Court does not interfere with the
Ombudsman’s determination of the existence of probable cause, unless
when there is GADALEJ (grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction). The Court stated that there is a GADALEJ
where a power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent
and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law. In the case at
bar, there is no showing of probable cause which signifies a reasonable
is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
2 ways of violating Sec 3(e), RA 3019:
1. Causing an undue injury to any party including the Gov;
2. Giving any private party unwarranted benefit, advantage or
preference.
In order to be held guilty, the act that cause undue injury must have
been done with bad faith which is evident or with gross inexcusable
negligence.
Elements of Sec 3(e), RA 3019 [PRICE] ()
1. The accused is a public officer or a private person charged in
conspiracy with the former;
2. That said public officer commits the prohibited acts during
the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to
his or her public functions;
3. That he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the
government or a private party;
4. Such undue injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference to such parties; and
5. That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
The Court ruled that some of the essential elements are absent:
1. There was no undue injury to the Gov.
The records show that the price of FVA blood bags was in
fact lower that the price offered to other government
hospitals and that reputable hospitals use the same blood
bag and have attested to its superior qualities.
2. Even assuming there was injury to the Gov, there was no bad faith
or inexcusable negligence on the part of the petitioner.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad moral judgment or
negligence. There must be some dishonest purpose or some
moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of
a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will. It
partakes the nature of fraud.
Gross negligence is characterized by the want of even slight
care, acting or omitting to act in a willfull or intentional
manner displaying a conscious indifference to consequences
as far as other persons may be affected.
The Court stated that the sense of urgency drove petitioner to purchase
the Terumo blood bags. When the Ombudsman did not take these
facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, he
gravely abused his discretion. The Court also rendered that Auditor
Gutierrez act of disallowing the said project is tainted with haste and
unfairness. Moreover, the urgency of the situation, and the good faith
of petitioners are attested by then Sec. Flavier.