G.R. No. 215801 - Bureau of Internal Revenue vs. 1st E-Bank Tower Condominium Corp.

The petitioner, Felipe P. Sabaldan, Jr., filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The petition sought to set aside:

The Resolution dated March 20, 2017 of the Office of the Ombudsman, which found probable cause against him for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The Joint Order dated October 13, 2017 that denied the motion for partial reconsideration.

On November 9, 2015, Christopher E. Lozada filed a Complaint-Affidavit accusing Bislig City Mayor Librado C. Navarro of multiple irregularities, including:

Failing to implement the SikahoyA-Pamaypayan Road rehabilitation project.
Leasing a commercial building without Sangguniang Panlungsod approval.
Maintaining ghost employees in the City Government.
Failing to account for P2,200,000.00 meant for the construction of Poblacion Boulevard.
Hosting radio and television programs favoring personal interests.
Distributing substandard rice in a feeding program.
Allocating funds for a poultry house project that did not materialize.
Occupying residential housing units intended for government housing.
Not observing procurement rules in the purchase of a hydraulic excavator.

Specifically, it was alleged that the City Government purchased a Komatsu PC200-8 crawler-type hydraulic excavator from RDAK Transport Equipment, Inc. at P14,750,000.00, despite a substantially lower bid by JVF Commercial International Heavy Equipment Corp.

Petitioner was involved in the procurement process as a General Services Officer/BAC Member.
Along with other city officials (including the City Administrator/BAC Chairman and City Treasurer/BAC Member among others), petitioner was implicated in reviewing and endorsing the abstract of bids for the said procurement.
The abstract of bids signed by petitioner contained the basic information:

Name of the contract and its location.
Schedule and details of the bid opening.
Names of bidders with their bid prices arranged from lowest to highest, including bid security details.

There was an initial inspection report from state auditors (dated March 7, 2012) which noted that RDAK’s hydraulic excavator conformed to the approved purchase order’s specifications.
A conflicting report by the Commission on Audit (COA) led to the issuance of a Notice of Disallowance, prompting petitioner and his co-respondents to file a Petition for Review with COA.
On March 20, 2017, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution:

Finding probable cause against petitioner and his co-respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Dismissing other charges, including violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 and malversation of public funds.

RDAK’s failure to comply with Section 25 of the Revised IRRs of R.A. No. 9184, which mandates submission of technical specifications.
Data manipulation in the post-qualification report, notably discrepancies in the reported specifications (e.g., bucket capacity differences).
The conduct of the Bac in spite of clear evidence of non-responsiveness in the bidding process.

Petitioner challenged the findings of the Ombudsman on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The central issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support that petitioner, as a BAC member, acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence during the procurement.

Whether the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 involved a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Whether the court could substitute its judgment for that of the Ombudsman in determining the existence of probable cause.

Whether there is a clear and sufficient showing of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence on the part of petitioner in his role as a BAC member.
Whether merely signing the abstract of bids, without signing the resolution of award, suffices to establish the criminal liability under Section 3(e).

Whether the irregularities noted under R.A. No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) automatically translate into a violation of the distinct provisions of R.A. No. 3019.
Whether the alleged procurement flaws can independently prove that petitioner caused undue injury to the government or conferred unwarranted benefits to a private party.