Bustillo et. al. vs. People,

G.R. 160718, May 12, 2010

This is a case about the rule on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

a complaint was filed against then already ex-Mayor Andy, Tino his vice mayor and four Sangguniang Bayan members, Gene, Emil, Ruth and Ernie who passed Res. 95-27 accusing them of violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft Law for causing undue injury to the Municipality. Also charged was the general manager of SFWD.

The elements of the offense are:

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

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

(3) That they caused undue injury to any party whether Government or private party;

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

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

In this case only the first element was present. All the other elements were not proven. The transfer of the vehicles to SFWD was made in furtherance of the purpose for which the funds were released. The deed of transfer also expressly provided that the said vehicles shall be used for the same purpose for which they were purchased.

Moreover the transfer was made to ensure the success of the implementation of the CDF funded waterworks projects and not because SFWD was given any preference, unwarranted benefits or undue advantage.

Andy, Tino and Emil were not also motivated by bad faith when they transferred the motor vehicles to SFWD. They have in their favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties as mayor, vice mayor and councilor respectively. This presumption of regularity may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. In his case the presumption prevails because of lack of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Every reasonable intendment of the law will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.