ARNOLD D. NAVALES, REY C. CHAVEZ, ROSINDO J. ALMONTE, AND ALFONSO E. LAID, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.[ G.R. No. 219598, August 07, 2024 ]

As to the third element of a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Practices Act, the Court finds that the same is also absent. Case law identifies the two ways by which said section may be committed, namely: (a) causing undue injury to any party, including the government; or (b) giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference.

In the present case, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners under the second mode. It held that they gave unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to Hydrock when they awarded the contract without public bidding. In fact, the company started working on the project even before the notice of award and notice to proceed were issued.

The Court stressed in Adana,however, that to be found guilty under the second mode, it must be shown that the accused gave unjustified favor or unwarranted benefit to another in the exercise of his or her official functions. Adana elucidates:

In the second mode, "the word 'unwarranted' means lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason. 'Advantage' means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action. 'Preference' signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another.