Case Digest (G.R. No. 148944)
Facts:
Mayor Alvin B. Garcia v. Honorable Primo C. Miro, G.R. No. 148944, February 05, 2003, Supreme Court En Banc, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Alvin B. Garcia, then Mayor of Cebu City, signed a May 7, 1998 contract with F.E. Zuellig, Inc. making it the exclusive supplier of asphalt for the City's batching plant for three years (1998–2001), with initial delivery due in September 1998. Garcia was later reelected; an earlier preventive six-month suspension imposed by the Deputy Ombudsman had been the subject of a prior petition (Garcia v. Mojica), in which this Court held the suspension unnecessary and noted that reelection may amount to condonation (citing Salalima v. Guingona).
In March 1999 newspaper reports surfaced alleging anomalies in the contract. On March 30, 1999 the Deputy Ombudsman ordered the Commission on Audit (COA) Region VII to conduct a special audit and requested city records. Special Prosecution Officer Jesus Rodrigo T. Tagaan was assigned (INQ-VIS-99-0132) and recommended filing administrative and criminal complaints; he filed an affidavit on June 21, 1999 charging Garcia and others with violations of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.
On August 16, 1999 the COA Special Audit Report (and later joint affidavits of State Auditors Hilario Cabreros and Sulpicio Quejada, Jr.) concluded, inter alia, that (a) payments were made in advance for undelivered items, (b) the three‑year contract appeared void for lack of appropriation in violation of Sections 85–87 of PD 1445, (c) the mayor exceeded authority under the SP resolution, and (d) pricing and delivery arrangements were manifestly disadvantageous and possibly tantamount to ghost deliveries; a supplemental affidavit (Apr. 18, 2000) added further details.
Tagaan resigned in January 2000 and his name was dropped as complainant; his report and affidavit remained in the record. On October 3, 2000 the Deputy Ombudsman issued an Order attaching the COA report and the joint affidavits and directed Garcia to file a counter‑affidavit within ten days pursuant to Administrative Order No. 7, Rule II, Secs. 2 and 4. Garcia refused to comply, filed motions to dismiss and for reconsideration, and on June 18, 2001 the Deputy Ombudsman treated his filings as his answer and declared the preliminary investigation terminated to be resolved on the basis of the record.
Petiti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the COA Special Audit Report and accompanying documents constitute a valid complaint sufficient to support a criminal proceeding before the Office of the Ombudsman?
- Did respondents commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by treating the COA fact‑finding report as a complaint and by requiring petitioner ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)