Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27514) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case involves consolidated petitions for certiorari filed by petitioners Luis Ramon P. Lorenzo and Arthur C. Yap, challenging the August 9, 2018 and September 25, 2018 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan's Sixth Division in Criminal Case Nos. SB-18-CRM-0288 to 0292. This series of cases stems from the alleged illegal procurement of fertilizer from the Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation (Philphos) during 2003. At the time, Lorenzo served as the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (DA), while Yap was the Administrator of the National Food Authority (NFA). Five criminal informations were filed against them, citing violations of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019).
According to the allegations, the procurement was allegedly made without observing the competitive bidding process mandated by law, instead resorting to negotiated procurement processes. The prosecution contended that Lorenzo and Yap, through bad faith and gross
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27514) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The subject criminal cases involve the anomalous procurement of fertilizer (granular urea) for the 2003 GMA Rice Program, specifically for various regions in Luzon.
- Petitioners Luis Ramon P. Lorenzo, then Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, and Arthur C. Yap, then Administrator of the National Food Authority, are alleged to have directed a negotiated mode of procurement instead of public bidding.
- The alternative procurement process, allegedly adopted to meet an emergency in the wet season, is alleged to have displayed manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and/or gross inexcusable negligence, thereby causing undue injury to the government and favoring the Manila-based supplier Philphos.
- Initiation and Investigation of the Case
- The fact-finding investigation began as early as 2003 with a long delay in the formal filing of criminal Informations.
- A complaint was filed in November 2013 by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Ombudsman, marking the official initiation of the prosecutorial process as per Supreme Court guidelines.
- The Ombudsman’s investigation spanned several years, culminating in the filing of five criminal Informations on April 20, 2018, against Lorenzo, Yap, and a third co-accused representing Philphos.
- The Alleged Procurement Anomalies
- Facts on record allege that:
- The procurement was directed through a negotiated process where the normal rule of competitive bidding under R.A. 9184 was sidestepped.
- Specific issuances by the petitioners included:
- Directing the Regional Bids and Awards Committees (RBACs) to use negotiated procurement for fertilizer requirements.
- The Ombudsman, after various fact-finding resolutions, had previously dismissed similar complaints in related cases in the Visayas and Mindanao areas, noting the absence of one or more essential elements of the offense.
- Procedural Posture and Motions Filed
- Lorenzo and Yap moved to quash the criminal Informations filed against them on two grounds:
- The facts alleged in the Informations did not constitute an offense under the applicable law.
- There was an inordinate delay in the posting of the Informations, thereby violating their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
- The Sandiganbayan, in resolutions dated August 9, 2018 and September 25, 2018, denied the motions to quash, ruling that the pleadings sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense and that issues such as procurement rationale and alleged delay were matters for trial and not for preliminary resolution.
Issues:
- Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the motions to quash the criminal Informations on the following grounds:
- The alleged delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation deprived the petitioners of their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
- The proper application of the doctrine on evidence aliunde in a motion to quash, specifically whether extrinsic evidence that was admitted or not denied by the prosecution should be considered when determining if the facts in the Informations constitute an offense.
- Whether the petitioners’ argument that the resort to negotiated procurement was validated by the applicable procurement regime (i.e. EO 40 instead of R.A. 9184) merits dismissal of the charges, taking into account the prior resolutions in similar cases (Visayas and Mindanao).
- Whether the failure of petitioners to timely invoke their right to speedy disposition, such as by moving for early resolution, amounts to a waiver of that constitutional right.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)