Case Digest (G.R. No. 159139)
Facts:
In Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections (“Infotech”), decided January 13, 2004, the Supreme Court nullified COMELEC Resolution No. 6074 awarding the Phase II automated counting machines (ACMs) contract to Mega Pacific Consortium (MPC) and the corresponding contract with Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc. (MPEI). The Court found that the COMELEC abused its discretion by accepting MPC’s bid despite (a) the absence of a consortium agreement among its purported members, (b) ACMs that failed to meet the 99.9995% accuracy requirement under its own Request for Proposal, and (c) evaluation of a demo software rather than the final version. The decision directed the Ombudsman to investigate possible criminal liability of involved public and private individuals. Pursuant to this mandate, the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office docketed cases (including CPL-C-04-0060 and OMB-C-C-04-0011-A) and conducted 12 public hearings, interviewing 10 witnesses aCase Digest (G.R. No. 159139)
Facts:
- Infotech Decision (G.R. No. 159139)
- January 13, 2004: The Supreme Court nullified
- COMELEC Resolution No. 6074 awarding Phase II of the Automated Electoral System (AES) to Mega Pacific Consortium (MPC), and
- The procurement contract for automated counting machines (ACMs) with Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc. (MPEI).
- Grounds for nullification:
- Failure to follow COMELEC’s own bidding rules (no consortium agreement submitted).
- ACMs failed the 99.9995% accuracy requirement (27-point DOST test showed eight failures).
- Use of demo software instead of final version, permitting substantive amendment without rebidding.
- Directive: The Office of the Ombudsman “shall determine the criminal liability, if any, of the public officials (and conspiring private individuals, if any).”
- Ombudsman Proceedings
- Fact-finding docketed as CPL-C-04-0060; Senator Pimentel filed complaints (OMB-C-C-04-0011-A; OMB-C-A-04-0015-A); Kilosbayan and Bantay Katarungan filed related complaint (OMB-L-C-02-0922-J).
- Supreme Court show-cause Resolution (Feb. 14, 2006) for Ombudsman’s delay; quarterly report directive issued March 28, 2006.
- Investigation and Supplemental Resolution
- June 28, 2006 Resolution: Recommended information in Sandiganbayan against certain COMELEC officials; dismissal as to others; further fact-finding.
- July–August 2006: Investigating panel conducted 12 public hearings, interviewed 10 witnesses, received 198 documents.
- September 27, 2006 Supplemental Resolution: Reversed June 28 findings; dismissed administrative and criminal complaints for lack of probable cause.
- Special Civil Action and Consolidation
- G.R. No. 174777: Petition for certiorari to nullify Supplemental Resolution and cite Ombudsman in contempt.
- G.R. No. 159139: Motion to reject Supplemental Resolution as compliance and to order filing of information.
- Supreme Court consolidated cases and limited review to the criminal aspect of the Ombudsman’s resolution.
Issues:
- Did the Infotech directive amount to a Supreme Court finding of probable cause that mandated criminal complaints?
- Does the Ombudsman retain independent discretion to determine probable cause after an SC decision?
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaints?
- Can the Supreme Court review the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause absent grave abuse?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)