Title
Caballero vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 137355-58
Decision Date
Sep 25, 2007
Petitioners, including a mayor and his wife, challenged Sandiganbayan's denial of their motion to quash graft charges. SC ruled no violation of RA 3019, citing lack of intervention in contracts, dismissing the case.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175836)

Factual Antecedents

The case originates from complaints against Mayor Eugenio Caballero and other municipal officials regarding alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with procurement transactions during Caballero’s term in 1993. A public bidding for necessary materials and catering services led to contracts awarded to Caballero's wife's businesses—GP's Food Catering Services and Genty General Merchandise. A subsequent complaint filed by Crisologo Decierdo claimed these awards amounted to unlawful benefits procured due to the Mayor’s position.

Investigation Findings

State Auditor Leonilo Morales conducted an investigation and determined that the bidding process had been followed properly without Mayor Caballero’s influence on the outcome. Morales recommended dismissal of the complaint, citing procedural compliance and a lack of evidence of any impropriety on the part of the officials involved. However, this conclusion was overturned by the Ombudsman which found prima facie evidence against the petitioners and charged them, leading to the issuance of four information regarding violations of the Anti-Graft Law.

Motion to Quash

The petitioners subsequently filed a motion to quash the information, asserting that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. They emphasized the prosecutor's recommendation to quash the motions based on the same reasoning that Mayor Caballero’s conduct and involvement did not meet the legal criteria for a violation of the Anti-Graft Law.

Sandiganbayan's Rulings

The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash, determining that the allegations positioned Mayor Caballero as having intervened in favor of his wife's businesses due to his position as a public officer and his financial interest in the businesses. The court maintained that the facts charged sufficiently established a basis for charges of corruption.

Grounds for Petitioners' Appeal

The petitioners argued that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the motion to quash on grounds that the information failed to state an offense due to lack of established evidence that Mayor Caballero intervened improperly in the awarding of the contracts.

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

With respect to jurisdiction, the petitioners contended that they were not within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction as municipal mayors were not specifically listed in the law governing the court's jurisdiction over corrupt practices. However, jurisprudence, particularly the decision in Binay v. Sandiganbayan, indicated that municipal mayors do indeed fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan due to their classification under applicable salary grades devised in the Compensation and Position Classification Act.

Legal Interpretation of Financial Interest and Intervention

The Supreme Court interpreted the requirements under Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law allowing for criminal liability when public officials utilize their positi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.