Case Digest (G.R. No. 195665) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In 1990, the city government of Davao launched its Local Automation Project, forming a Computerization Program Committee chaired by City Administrator Benjamin C. De Guzman with Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte as the signing authority. The committee recommended the acquisition of Goldstar computers from Systems Plus, Inc. (SPI) for P 11,656,810, which the Sangguniang Panlungsod approved through Resolutions No. 1402 & 1403 and Ordinances No. 173 & 174 on November 5, 1990. A downpayment of P 1,748,521.58 was released on November 8, 1990. On November 27, 1990, the Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao docketed Letter-Complaint OMB-MIN-90-0425 but took no action. In February 1991, Civil Case No. 20,550-91 was filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, seeking nullification of the contract. SPI and the city mutually rescinded the agreement on May 6, 1991, and the downpayment was refunded. Meanwhile, COA Special Audit Report No. 91-05 (May 31, 1991) had recommended rescission due to procuremen Case Digest (G.R. No. 195665) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Project Implementation
- Petitioners Rodrigo R. Duterte (City Mayor) and Benjamin C. de Guzman (City Administrator) of Davao City oversaw the 1990 launch of the Davao City Local Automation Project.
- A Computerization Program Committee, chaired by de Guzman, studied available systems and recommended procurement of Goldstar computers exclusively distributed by Systems Plus, Inc. (SPI).
- Contract, Audit and Rescission
- On 5 November 1990, the City Council approved a P 11,656,810 contract with SPI; de Guzman released a P 1,748,521.58 downpayment on 8 November 1990.
- COA Special Audit Report No. 91-05 (31 May 1991) found numerous procurement irregularities (no bidding, insufficient appropriation, overpricing, lack of ISP) and recommended rescission; the contract was mutually rescinded and downpayment refunded on 6 May 1991.
- Ombudsman Inquiry and Sandiganbayan Case
- 1 August 1991: Anti-Graft League filed complaint OMB-3-91-1768 with the Ombudsman. Graft Investigator Manriquez conducted an irregular preliminary inquiry in late 1991, directing petitioners only to file comments (not counter-affidavits) on the civil complaint and SAR No. 91-05.
- 8 February 1996: Information charging violation of Sec. 3(g), R.A. 3019 was filed before the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 23193); petitioners’ Motion to Quash denied on 27 June 1997 and their Motion for Reconsideration denied on 5 August 1997. Petitioners thereafter sought certiorari relief.
Issues:
- Whether the failure to conduct a proper preliminary investigation under Administrative Order No. 07, Rule II (no complaint-affidavits, no counter-affidavits) and the four-year delay violated petitioners’ right to due process and speedy disposition.
- Whether, as a matter of fact and law, the elements of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. 3019 were lacking given the mutual rescission of the computerization contract prior to the filing of charges.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)