Case Digest (G.R. No. 168982)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Dir. Gen. Cesar P. Nazareno, Dir. Gen. Everlino Nartatez, Dir. Nicasio Ma. S. Custodio, G.R. No. 168982, August 05, 2009, Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are the People of the Philippines; the respondents are then PNP officials Cesar P. Nazareno, Everlino Nartatez and Nicasio Ma. S. Custodio, and the questioned decision below was that of the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) which acquitted the respondents of violating Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).The prosecution arose from three related purchase orders by the PNP for 5,681 units of Caliber .45 Thompson pistols from Beltra Industries: PO No. 081190-654 (Nov. 8, 1990) for 2,822 units at P18,550.30 each (P52,348,946.60); PO No. 0-240-492-185 (Apr. 24, 1992) for 1,617 units (P29,995,835.10); and PO No. 0-050-582-153 (May 5, 1992) for 1,242 units (P23,039,472.60). The purchase orders bore the signatures of Directors Nazareno and Nartatez; checks were signed by Custodio.
Allegations of overpricing prompted two investigations. A tri‑agency committee (PNP Inspector General’s Office, National Police Commission, Office of the President) found no overpricing or collusion. A separate special audit team of the Commission on Audit (COA), comparing PNP unit prices to the AFP Logistics Command (LOGCOM) unit cost (P10,578.25), concluded the PNP procurement appeared overpriced by about P45 million. On the basis of the COA special audit report, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an information in the Sandiganbayan charging the respondents with conspiring to enter manifestly and grossly disadvantageous contracts in violation of RA 3019.
At trial the prosecution presented members of the COA special audit team and documentary evidence showing the price variance with LOGCOM. The respondents presented witnesses who testified that AFP acquisitions reflected prices under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (“FMS”) program, which were not comparable to local commercial acquisitions; they offered documentary proof (including a U.S. JUSMAG letter) and tri‑agency investigators who testified there were no irregularities. The Sandiganbayan found the AFP prices unreliable as a basis for proving overpricing because the COA audit did not conduct an actual canvass of identified suppliers and thus failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements established in prior cases and COA guidance (including Arriola v. Commission on Audit, National Center for Mental Health Management v. COA, and COA Memorandum No. 97‑012). The Sandiganbayan acquitted the respondents and separately rejected the prosecution’s conspiracy theory.
The People filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Sandiganbayan decision, raising four issues that i...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the double jeopardy clause bar the State from seeking review of the Sandiganbayan’s acquittal via a Rule 45 petition?
- Did the Sandiganbayan gravely err in taking judicial notice of the alleged laws of the United States and applying them to the case?
- Did the Sandiganbayan gravely err in relying solely on defense witnesses regarding the existence and effectivity of U.S. laws?
- Did the Sandiganbayan fail to appreciate the prosecution’s evidenc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)