G.R. No. 20644 - Phee vs. La Vanguardia

The petitioners, Quintin B. Saludaga and SPO2 Fiel E. Genio, were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly entering into a Pakyaw Contract for the construction of Barangay Day Care Centers in Barangays Mac-Arthur and Urdaneta, Lavezares, Northern Samar.
The alleged offense involved the violation of legal provisions by conducting the project without a competitive public bidding, thereby awarding the contract to Olimpio Legua, a non-license contractor and non-accredited NGO, with the contract amounts set at ₱48,500.00 each or a total of ₱97,000.00.

An Information was initially filed on September 13, 2000, charging the petitioners with having caused undue injury to the government by the alleged illegal contracting.
The case was initially raffled to the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan and docketed as Criminal Case No. 26319.
On June 14, 2002, the Third Division granted the petitioners’ Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the prosecution failed to allege and prove the amount of actual damages, dismissing the case on technical grounds.

Following directions by the Ombudsman, the Office of the Special Prosecutor amended and re-filed the Information on August 17, 2007, this time docketed as Criminal Case No. SB-08 CRM 0263, now charging the petitioners for giving unwarranted benefit or advantage to a private party.
On June 4, 2008, the petitioners filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation, which was vigorously opposed by the prosecution, leading to a dispute over whether the refiled Information constituted a substitution or substantial amendment that warranted a new preliminary investigation.
The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, on July 14, 2008, issued a Resolution denying the Motion for Preliminary Investigation, stating that there was no substantial change in the nature of the offense, only a modification in the mode of commission.
On August 6, 2008, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the two Informations charged different offenses. This motion was also denied in open court on August 13, 2008 during the arraignment.

The petitioners sought relief through a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
They additionally requested the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, asserting that the failure to conduct a new preliminary investigation (due to the alleged substitution or substantial amendment in the Information and the presence of newly discovered evidence) amounted to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Whether the refiled Information in Criminal Case No. SB-08 CRM 0263, despite its modification in the mode of commission, constitutes a substituted Information or a substantial amendment that would justify the initiation of a new preliminary investigation.
Whether the shift in emphasis from “causing undue injury to the government” (as alleged in the original Information) to “giving unwarranted benefit to a private party” (as charged in the amended Information) creates a distinct offense requiring separate or fresh preliminary investigation.
Whether the existence of what petitioners claim as newly discovered evidence (specifically, the affidavit of COA Auditor Carlos G. Pornelos) mandates a re-examination of the finding of prima facie cause, thereby compelling a fresh preliminary investigation.
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction by denying the petitioners’ motion for a preliminary investigation and subsequently their motion for reconsideration.