G.R. No. 137355-58 - Caballero vs. Sandiganbayan

Eugenio U. Caballero – the incumbent mayor of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte at the time of the petition;
Ma. Theresa G. Caballero – his wife and proprietress of GP’s Food Catering Services and Genty General Merchandise;
Nerita Cuento – the municipal accountant of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte.

In 1993, during Mayor Caballero’s incumbency, the Municipality of Manukan conducted committee hearings on the tax ordinance and a seminar-workshop on budget.
These events required the procurement of materials and catering services.
A public bidding was held by the Committee on Awards, resulting in:

The award for the supply of materials to Genty General Merchandise;
The award for meals and snacks to GP’s Food Catering Services – both owned and operated by Theresa Caballero.

A letter-complaint was filed by Crisologo Decierdo before the Office of the Auditor in Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte, charging Mayor Caballero, his wife, the Municipal Treasurer Semie Torres, and Municipal Accountant Nerita Cuento with violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
State Auditor Leonilo Morales conducted an investigation and, in his report dated June 16, 1995, recommended dismissal due to lack of sufficient basis.
Despite this, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao resumed the investigation and, in a resolution dated October 14, 1997, found a prima facie case for violation of Section 3(h) of RA No. 3019, leading to the filing of criminal informations.

Four criminal informations were filed (Criminal Case Nos. 24366, 24367, 24368, and 24369) charging violation of Section 3(h) against:

Mayor Caballero, as the public officer having a financial or pecuniary interest in the related transactions involving his wife’s businesses;
Nerita Cuento and Theresa Caballero as co-conspirators in the said transactions;
Municipal Treasurer Semie Torres, whose case was later dismissed owing to his death on September 13, 1997.

On September 18, 1998, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the informations, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute the offense charged.

The Sandiganbayan, through its Third Division, denied the petitioners’ motion to quash in its resolution dated December 8, 1998.
A subsequent resolution on February 12, 1999, reaffirmed the denial of the motion to quash.
The key contention of petitioners was that the allegations failed to prove that Mayor Caballero had actively intervened or exerted influence in favor of his wife’s companies during the bidding process.
Evidence showed that while Mayor Caballero signed the disbursement vouchers (DVs) for record purposes, he abstained from participating in the Committee on Awards’ deliberations and decisions.

Special Prosecution Officer II Norberto Ruiz recommended the quashal of the informations on the basis that the requirements of public bidding and related accounting procedures were properly observed.
The Solicitor General also contended that denying the motion to quash constituted a grave abuse of discretion, as the facts did not adequately establish the necessary element of intervention by Mayor Caballero.
Jurisprudence and statutory provisions (including PD No. 1606, RA No. 6758, and provisions of the Local Government Code) were invoked to discuss both the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the proper requirements for a prima facie case.

Whether the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving municipal mayors as alleged under RA No. 3019, PD No. 1606, and RA No. 6758.
Whether the exclusion of municipal mayors from such jurisdiction, as argued by the petitioners, holds validity.

Whether the facts purported in the informations satisfy all essential elements of the offense under Section 3(h) of RA No. 3019.
Specifically, whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mayor Caballero intervened or took part in his official capacity to favor his wife’s business interests.

Whether the petitioners’ motion to quash on the ground that the allegations fail to constitute an offense should be granted, pursuant to Section 3(a) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.