Title
People vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 239878
Decision Date
Feb 28, 2022
Local officials accused of graft in a P5M fertilizer procurement without bidding; case dismissed due to inordinate delay violating their right to speedy disposition.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 239878)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Complainants and Respondents
      • Task Force Abono of the Office of the Ombudsman filed complaint against respondents: Alfonso Casurra (Mayor), Leonardo Edera Jr. (Treasurer), Jocelyn Monteros (Accountant), Maria Geotina (Engineer/BAC member), Armando Elumba (General Services Officer/BAC member), Carlo Lozada Jr. (Legal Officer/BAC member), and private party Rosemarie Palacio (proprietress of Rosa “Mia” Trading).
      • Alleged violation: Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft Act) and procurement laws in connection with overpricing of fertilizer.
  • Transaction and Audit
    • In 2004 the City of Surigao received ₱5,000,000 under the DA’s Farm Inputs Program and contracted Rosa “Mia” Trading for 3,332 kg of fertilizer at ₱1,500/kg (total ₱4,998,000) without bidding.
    • COA post-audit found overpricing (variance against locally canvassed cost) and issued a Notice of Disallowance in June 2006 (amended March 2007).
  • Administrative and Criminal Proceedings
    • July 4, 2011 – Task Force Abono filed complaint with OMB for RA 3019 and RA 9184 violations.
    • October 5, 2016 – OMB found probable cause for Section 3(e) of RA 3019; approved March 22, 2017.
    • May 2, 2017 – Information filed in Sandiganbayan charging Section 3(e) breach.
  • Motions, Opposition, and Sandiganbayan Rulings
    • Motions to Quash and Defer
      • September 22, 2017 – Monteros moved to quash/dismiss and defer arrest and arraignment due to inordinate delay (11 years, 3 months) violating speedy-disposition right.
      • September 25, 2017 – Casurra, Edera, Geotina, and Elumba filed omnibus motion to quash; Lozada adopted.
  • Prosecution’s Opposition and Sandiganbayan Decisions
    • October 19, 2017 – Office of the Special Prosecutor opposed, contending delay was reasonable given complexity and heavy caseload (“Fertilizer Fund Scam”).
    • November 27, 2017 – Sandiganbayan granted motions, dismissed case for Section 3(e) RA 3019 violation, citing more than 11 years delay and resulting prejudice.
    • April 18, 2018 – Motion for reconsideration denied; added public humiliation and no accused-attributable delay.
    • September 7, 2018 – Case dismissed against Palacio.

Issues:

  • Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting respondents’ motions and dismissing Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1669 for alleged inordinate delay and violation of right to speedy disposition of cases.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.