G.R. No. 163584 - Robinson vs. Miralles

Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr. (petitioner), Manager of the Regional Projects Department of the NHA, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 challenging two Sandiganbayan First Division Resolutions dated 2 March 2007 and 18 October 2007 in Criminal Case No. 26583 (People v. Robert P. Balao, et al.), which denied his Motion to Quash the Information and his Motion for Reconsideration.
Co-accused included public officers Robert P. Balao, Virgilio V. Dacalos, Josephine O. Angsico, Josephine T. Espinosa, Noel H. Lobrido, and private individual Arceo C. Cruz of A.C. Cruz Construction.

June 1990: National Housing Authority (NHA) awarded a World Bank-funded P7,666,507.55 contract to A.C. Cruz Construction for infrastructure works on the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project, Phase I in Bacolod City. Work commenced 1 August 1990.
April 1991: Project Engineer Candido M. Fajutag, Jr. approved Variation/Extra Work Order No. 1 for excavation and road filling. A.C. Cruz submitted the fourth billing on 6 May 1991, but Fajutag, Jr. found no supporting documents and discovered that no actual excavation or road fill occurred. He noted absence of topographic maps, discarded survey sheets, lack of laboratory tests, overestimation of volumes contrary to contract specifications, and no records by prior engineers.

27 June 1991: Project Office recommended termination. 12 August 1991: Inventory Committee valued A.C. Cruz’s work at 40.89% (P3,433,713.10 of revised P8,397,225.09). NHA rescinded contract by 29 August 1991 but contractor continued intermittent work.
March 1992: NHA and contractor mutually terminated contract by Board Resolution No. 2453; remaining works awarded to Triad Construction (P9,554,837.32). Triad issued P1,000,000 to A.C. Cruz in settlement.
COA special audit uncovered ghost activities and defective workmanship; confirmed overpayment of P232,628.35 to A.C. Cruz for non-existent excavation and road filling works.

5 March 2001: Information filed against petitioner and co-accused for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), alleging conspiracy to give unwarranted benefits and causing undue injury to the government by paying P232,628.35 for ghost works.
2 October 2006: Petitioner moved to quash the Information on grounds of non-constitutive facts, non-conformity to form, violation of right to be informed, and lack of individual participation allegations.
2 March 2007 and 18 October 2007: Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash and motion for reconsideration, finding probable cause and sufficiency of the Information.

Whether certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash.
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash.

Whether the Information sufficiently alleges the essential elements of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, in the prescribed form.
Whether a conspiracy allegation must detail individual acts or participation of each accused.
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioner, given his salary grade and position in a government-owned or controlled corporation.