Title
Cabahug vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 132816
Decision Date
Feb 5, 2002
DECS official Susana Cabahug faced graft charges for a negotiated armchair contract. Supreme Court dismissed the case, citing lack of probable cause and good faith in her actions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132816)

Applicable Law

The governing law applicable to this situation includes Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits certain acts of public officers that constitute graft. The legal framework surrounding the procedural aspects of preliminary investigations is also relevant, particularly as codified under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and enacted statutes such as the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6770).

Factual Background

The petitioner executed a contract with RWIC, following an internal recommendation from undersecretary Antonio E.B. Nachura, which suggested that the transaction be pursued due to urgent educational needs. However, complaints arose regarding the alleged overpricing of the chairs, leading to an investigation initiated by Atty. Meliton R. Reyes on behalf of de la Cruz, which claimed that the contract violated anti-graft laws and was harmful to the government’s interests.

Preliminary Investigation

The investigations led by the Office of the Ombudsman resulted in a resolution finding probable cause against Cabahug, citing violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Notably, the Ombudsman’s findings conflicted with the position of the Special Prosecutor who, after review, recommended dismissing the case against Cabahug, concluding that there was no evidence of bad faith or gross negligence on her part.

Motion for Reconsideration and Reinvestigation

Cabahug filed several motions, including a Motion for Re-determination of Existence of Probable Cause and a Motion for Reinvestigation, asserting errors in the Ombudsman’s conclusions and the arbitrary denial by the Sandiganbayan of her request. The Sandiganbayan treated her requests as second motions for reconsideration which were forbidden under the Rules of Court.

Judicial Determination of Abuse of Discretion

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, recognized the significant misapprehension of facts by the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan's subsequent actions. It articulated that the preliminary investigation is intende

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.