Case Digest (G.R. No. 219598)
Facts:
Arnold D. Navales, Rey C. Chavez, Rosindo J. Almonte, and Alfonso E. Laid, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent; William Velasco Guillen, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent, G.R. Nos. 219598 and 220108, August 07, 2024, Supreme Court First Division, Marquez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners were officials of the Davao City Water District (DCWD): Navales, Chavez, and Guillen served on the Pre-Bidding and Awards Committee-B (PBAC-B); Almonte was Division Manager of Engineering and Construction; Laid was Assistant General Manager for Administration. In November–February 1997–1998 the DCWD moved to undertake the Cabantian Water Supply System Project; the Board approved direct negotiation for the initial well-drilling phase and PBAC‑B adopted resolutions inviting accredited drillers rather than publishing advertisements, ultimately recommending award to Hydrock Wells, Inc. and the Board issuing the notice of award on February 13, 1998.
In 2005 separate complaints were filed. For the VES 21 Project petitioners were charged in an Amended Information (filed January 29, 2009) with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 for dispensing with competitive public bidding under Presidential Decree No. 1594 and giving Hydrock unwarranted benefit by awarding a negotiated contract. Petitioners pleaded not guilty, claiming exceptions to public bidding (urgency, failure of bidding, lack of bidders) and noting that PBAC‑B’s role was recommendatory to the Board.
After trial the Sandiganbayan (Special Third Division), in a Decision dated March 26, 2015, convicted petitioners of violation of Section 3(e) and sentenced them to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office; an August 7, 2015 Sandiganbayan Resolution denied their motions for reconsideration. Petitioners filed consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court (filed September–October 2015), seeking acquittal or remand to reopen evidence and raising, among other defenses, denial of speedy disposition and the claim that PBAC‑B’s acts were recommendatory only.
Separately, this Court had earlier (July 20, 2016) rendered a Decision in G.R. Nos. 194763–64 resolving related administrative charges arising from the same VES projects, fi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioners’ constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases violated such that the criminal prosecution must be dismissed?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), so as to sustain the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)