G.R. No. 124067 - Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan

The case involves a special civil action of certiorari and prohibition challenging two resolutions issued by the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 21711.
The resolutions under scrutiny pertain to the preventive suspension of the petitioners—Perla A. Segovia, Reynaldo C. Santiago, and Winifredo SM. Pangilinan—for a period of ninety (90) days under Section 13 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019, as amended.
The case arose from charges filed against the petitioners for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; the particular charge involved the allegation of extending undue advantage through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence.

Involvement with the National Power Corporation (NPC) and the Bidding Process

The petitioners occupied regular executive positions at the NPC and, together with two other officers (Gilberto A. Pastoral and Cecilia D. Vales, who had later resigned), were designated to form the NPC’s Contracts Committee for the Mindanao Grid LDC & SCADA/EMS System Operation Control Center and Facilities Project.
The Contracts Committee was responsible for prequalification and bidding procedures. It conducted the review of submitted bids where the lowest and second lowest bidders were initially identified, but subsequent verification led to disqualification due to downgrading from the Philippines Contractors Accreditation Board.
The Committee ultimately recommended declaring a failure of bidding and ordering a re-bidding, which was approved by the NPC Board. However, the project was eventually cancelled for reasons not appearing on record.

Affected by the developments, Urban, one of the bidding parties, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against several officials of the NPC, alleging manipulation in the bidding process to favor Joint Venture bidders.
A preliminary investigation was conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office, and Graft Investigation Officer A.A. Amante issued a Resolution on August 2, 1994, recommending that the petitioners and other officers be charged with a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
The recommendation, which was later approved by the Ombudsman, led to the filing of a criminal information with the Sandiganbayan, and the case proceeded with the accused being arraigned and entering pleas of not guilty.

On October 24, 1995, the People filed a motion to suspend the accused pendente lite invoking Section 13 of RA 3019, asserting that the criminal information was valid.
Although the petitioners opposed the suspension on various grounds—including the argument that their continued official functions and the cancellation of the project rendered suspension unnecessary—the motion for preventive suspension was ultimately granted.
The Sandiganbayan, relying on prior jurisprudence and the wording of Section 13, issued a resolution on January 31, 1996, ordering the immediate suspension of the petitioners for ninety (90) days.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the petitioners (filed on February 14, 1996) was denied by the Sandiganbayan, which maintained that its authority to suspend in such cases had been reiterated in several precedents.

Whether the preventive suspension imposed on the petitioners under Section 13 of RA 3019 is mandatory or discretionary.
Whether the Sandiganbayan, upon determining the validity of the criminal information at a pre-suspension hearing, failed by exercising its discretion if it did not suspend the petitioners.

Whether the suspension, given that the specific project involved had been cancelled and the petitioners’ current roles were unrelated to the bidding process, was still necessary.
Whether enforcing the suspension would unjustly delay vital NPC projects or deprive the public of necessary services during the period of suspension.
The petitioners argued that the preventive suspension was not warranted since there was no evidence of further malfeasance, potential witness intimidation, or tampering with documentation.