G.R. No. 164577 - People vs. Sandiganbayan

On November 23, 1999, respondents Victorino A. Basco, Romeo S. David, and Rogelio L. Luis, all high-ranking public officials, were charged with violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan.
The charges stemmed from their roles as Chairman and Presidents/CEOs of the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), Clark Development Corporation/Clark International Airport (CDC/CIAC), and Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), respectively.
They were accused of conspiring and entering into contracts for road construction projects (Mabalacat-Clark Spur Road and Clark Perimeter Road) without public bidding, resulting in contracts overpriced by 60% to 167%, causing undue injury to the government and granting unwarranted benefits to certain contractors.

Prior to arraignment, the accused filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration/Re-investigation, leading to the Sandiganbayan requiring comments from the Special Prosecutor and Ombudsman.
Special Prosecution Officer Roberto T. Agagon recommended withdrawal of the information pending COA review on overpricing, but the Ombudsman directed the prosecution to proceed with trial.
Upon arraignment, the respondents pleaded not guilty.

The Sandiganbayan's Pre-trial Order dated August 23, 2002, outlined issues including whether public bidding was required, if there was overpricing, undue injury, bad faith, and conspiracy.
The prosecution presented Atty. Emora C. Pagunuran as the sole witness and rested its case after submitting its formal offer of evidence.

The prosecution’s witness lacked personal knowledge and her testimony was hearsay.
Failure to prove overpricing properly, relying only on DPWH’s Typical Construction Costs, 1999 table.
An existing Court of Appeals ruling in an administrative case upheld validity of the contracts even without public bidding.

The Sandiganbayan initially denied the demurrers, stating the prosecution’s evidence substantiated the essential elements and respondents must present their evidence.
Separately, respondents Basco and Luis were charged administratively; the Ombudsman dismissed complaints against them but found another official liable for simple misconduct. The Court of Appeals exonerated the latter stating that time was of the essence and the contracts were valid.

Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was eventually granted on July 23, 2004, dismissing the criminal cases due to failure of prosecution to prove essential elements beyond reasonable doubt and to overcome the presumption of innocence.
Sandiganbayan relied on the Court of Appeals’ administrative case ruling as persuasive, finding no substantial evidence of overpricing and noting inconsistencies in Ombudsman memoranda.
The prosecution filed a petition for review under Rule 45 assailing this resolution.

Whether the entry into negotiated contracts by the respondents for the Mabalacat-Clark Spur Road and Clark Perimeter Road projects complied with the requirements of P.D. No. 1594 concerning public bidding.

Whether the Sandiganbayan can adopt the Court of Appeals' findings of fact from the administrative case, given the distinct criminal nature of the present case.