Title
Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 130191
Decision Date
Apr 27, 1998
Duterte and De Guzman charged under Anti-Graft Act for a rescinded Davao City computerization contract; SC dismissed case due to procedural lapses, lack of due process, and no valid contract.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 130191)

Formation and Mandate of the Computerization Committee

In 1990, Davao City organized a Computerization Program Committee—chaired by de Guzman and including COA and city officials—to study hardware quality, vendor reputation, maintenance support, and system design requirements for the Local Automation Project.

Legislative Approval and Budget Appropriation

On November 5, 1990, City Council Resolution No. 1402 and Ordinance No. 173 authorized the SPI contract (P 11,656,810) and empowered Mayor Duterte to sign. Simultaneously, Resolution No. 1403 and Ordinance No. 174 appropriated P 3,000,000 for the project.

Contract Execution and Initial Disbursement

Pursuant to legislative authority, Duterte and de Guzman executed the contract and de Guzman released P 1,748,521.58 as downpayment to SPI on November 8, 1990.

Complaints and Civil Suit Dismissal

A citizen’s complaint (OMB-MIN-90-0425) was filed November 1990 but not acted on. In February 1991, a civil suit (RTC Davao Civil Case No. 20,550-91) challenged the resolutions and contract. On April 8, 1991, the council approved contract cancellation; on May 6, 1991, Duterte and SPI rescinded the agreement and refunded the downpayment. The civil suit was dismissed February 14, 1992, as moot and academic.

COA Special Audit Findings and Recommendations

COA Special Audit Report No. 91-05 (May 31, 1991) found: non-competitive negotiated contract violating PD 526 and PD 1445; insufficient appropriation; irregular 15% advance payment; 1,200% price disparity; absence of Information System Plan; and recommended contract rescission and compliance with NCC procurement circulars.

Subsequent Procurement and Additional Complaint

Following a second study, the National Computer Center recommended Philips computers (P 15,792,150), which Davao City procured. On August 1, 1991, Anti-Graft League-Davao City filed an unverified complaint (OMB-3-91-1768) alleging RA 3019 and other violations against city officials and SPI.

Irregular Ombudsman Investigation Procedures

Graft Investigator Manriquez, Nov 12, 1991, ordered petitioners to file comments on the dismissed civil case and the SAR without issuing affidavits or notifying petitioners of a formal preliminary investigation, contravening A.O. No. 07, Rule II Sec. 4 requirements. Copies of affidavits from the Special Audit Team (filed Dec 4, 1991) were not furnished.

Violation of Preliminary Investigation Requirements

Under A.O. No. 07, Rule II: unverified complaints or official reports require affidavits; respondents must be ordered to file counter-affidavits, not mere comments; only after evaluating affidavits can the investigator require counter-affidavits. Petitioners were deprived of this adversarial procedure and lacked knowledge of any ongoing preliminary investigation.

Inordinate Delay and Speedy Disposition Right

Four years elapsed (Feb 1992–Feb 1996) before information was filed. This delay violated the constitutional guarantee of speedy disposition (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 16) and due process. Jurisprudence (Tatad v. Sandiganbayan; Angchangco v. Ombudsman) condemns multi-year delays in preliminary investigations absent compelling justification.

Substantive Right to Preliminary Investigation

Preliminary investigation is a substantive component of due process, protecting the innocent from hasty prosecuti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.