Case Digest (G.R. No. 130191)
Facts:
In 1990 the City of Davao, through Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte and City Administrator Benjamin C. De Guzman, entered into a P11,656,810 contract with Systems Plus, Inc. for a local computerization project; a downpayment of P1,748,521.58 was paid and the contract was mutually rescinded on 6 May 1991 following a COA Special Audit (SAR No. 91-05). Complaints were later filed with the Ombudsman, a graft investigator required petitioners to file comments rather than counter-affidavits, affidavits of the audit team were not furnished to petitioners, and after an alleged four-year delay information for violation of Sec. 3(g), R.A. No. 3019 was filed in the Sandiganbayan as Criminal Case No. 23193; the Sandiganbayan denied petitioners’ Motion to Quash and Motion for Reconsideration.
Issues:
- Were petitioners deprived of their right to a proper preliminary investigation under A.O. No. 07, Rule II?
- Did the undue delay in terminating the investigation violate petitioners’ right to due process and speedy disposition under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution?
- Was there probable cause to charge petitioners with violation of Sec. 3(g), R.A. No. 3019 given the rescission of the contract?
Ruling:
The petition was GRANTED and Criminal Case No. 23193 was DISMISSED; the Temporary Restraining Order issued was made PERMANENT. The Court found grave abuse of discretion in the Sandiganbayan’s denial of petitioners’ Motion to Quash and its refusal to correct the irregular preliminary investigation and the consequent delay.
Ratio:
The Court held that the Ombudsman failed to conduct a preliminary investigation in the mode required by A.O. No. 07, Rule II, Secs. 2 and 4, since complainant and supporting witnesses did not timely submit affidavits, petitioners were only ordered to file comments (not counter-affidavits), and the affidavits later filed were not furnished to petitioners. The four-year lapse between petitioners’ filings and the filing of the information constituted an inordinate delay that violated the constitutional guarantee of speedy disposition and deprived petitioners of due process. Finally, because the contract was rescinded on 6 May 1991 before the Ombudsman’s action, the essential element that petitioners entered into a contract on behalf of the government was absent, negating probable cause under Sec. 3(g), R.A. No. 3019.
Doctrine:
- Preliminary investigation is a substantive component of due process and must follow the procedures in A.O. No. 07, Rule II.
- Where a complaint is unverified or based on official reports, the complainant must submit affidavits before the respondent may be compelled to file counter-affidavits.
- Failure to furnish complaint-affidavits and to require counter-affidavits constitutes a denial of a proper preliminary investigation.
- An undue delay in terminating a preliminary investigation violates Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and may warrant dismissal.
- To charge an official under Sec. 3(g), R.A. No. 3019, there must be proof that the public officer entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government that is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous.