G.R. No. 201380 - Radaza vs. Sandiganbayan

The Province of Cebu was designated in 2006 as the venue for the 12th ASEAN Summit scheduled for January 9–15, 2007.
In preparation for the Summit, beautification projects were commenced, including a major street lighting project involving the acquisition and installation of street lighting facilities and decorative lampposts in Cebu, Mandaue, and Lapu-Lapu cities.
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) was principally tasked to implement the street lighting project.

On January 9, 2007, several groups (including BAYAN, Panaghugpong sa Kabus sa Dakbayan-KADAMAY, Kilusang Magbubukid sa Pilipinas, Panaghuisa sa Gagmay'ng Mangingisda sa Sugbo, and Alyansa sa Mamumu-o sa Sugbo) submitted a letter to the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas alleging pricing anomalies and irregularities in the project.
On March 23, 2007, the Ombudsman-Visayas issued a Final Evaluation Report, finding prima facie evidence of overpricing and alleged collusion between private contractors, the winning bidders, and local government officials, including those from Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu cities.
Based on the report, criminal charges and administrative proceedings were recommended against several persons, including Arturo O. Radaza, who was then the City Mayor of Lapu-Lapu City.

Initially, Radaza was recommended for indictment for violation of Paragraph (e), Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), as well as for administrative liability for dishonesty or grave misconduct.
On April 2, 2007, following the Ombudsman’s Order, Radaza filed his Counter-Affidavit in response to the recommendation.
In a January 24, 2008 Resolution, the Ombudsman-Visayas amended the criminal charges against Radaza (and his co-respondents) from violation of Section 3(e) to Section 3(g) of RA 3019.
The Information approved that day detailed the alleged wrongful acts including Radaza’s signature on the Program of Works and Detailed Estimates (POWE) for the street lighting facilities contract, which was claimed to be manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.

Subsequent to the filing of the Information, Radaza filed several motions including:

A Motion for Reconsideration of the January 24, 2008 Resolution before the Office of the Ombudsman-Central.
A Manifestation with an Urgent Motion to Defer, Recall, or Hold in Abeyance the issuance of the warrant of arrest, and he subsequently posted bail.
An Omnibus Motion for Judicial Redetermination of Probable Cause and for Quashal of Information to contest the sufficiency of his signature as probable cause.

The Sandiganbayan scheduled Radaza’s arraignment for June 6, 2008, and later on conditionally arraigned him on September 23, 2008 pending his motion to travel abroad.
The prosecution, after a reinvestigation which resulted in a Supplemental Resolution dated May 4, 2009, refiled an Amended Information charging Radaza under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, with detailed allegations on pricing excesses and irregularities in the project procurement process.

In its November 2, 2011 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied Radaza’s Opposition and Motion to Quash the Amended Information, affirming that the compliance by the prosecution was sufficient and setting the arraignment for November 24, 2011.
In a follow-up February 21, 2012 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan reiterated the November 2, 2011 decision, denying Radaza’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Throughout the process, Radaza contended that his mere signature on the POWE should not implicate him criminally, and he challenged both the validity of the Amended Information and the authority of the filing officer, alleging a lack of proper approval by the incumbent Ombudsman.

Radaza filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the November 2, 2011 and February 21, 2012 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
His petition asserted, among other issues, that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his motions, and that the Amended Information was defective due to being filed without the proper written authority or approval of the incumbent Ombudsman, thereby allegedly depriving the court of jurisdiction over his person and the subject matter.

Whether the Sandiganbayan, by denying Radaza’s Motion to Quash the Amended Information—which was filed pursuant to the Supplemental Resolution approved by the former Ombudsman—committed grave abuse of discretion by overlooking the alleged lack of proper written authority and approval by the incumbent Ombudsman (Carpio-Morales).

Whether the failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to allow Ombudsman Carpio-Morales to review and approve the Joint Resolution indicates that there was no probable cause to indict Radaza under either Section 3(e) or Section 3(g) of RA 3019, hence rendering the Amended Information void and without jurisdiction.