Title
Lazarte, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 180122
Decision Date
Mar 13, 2009
NHA officials charged under Anti-Graft Law for overpaying P232,628.35 to A.C. Cruz Construction for non-existent infrastructure work in Bacolod City.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170234)

Chronology of Project and Contract Award

In June 1990 the NHA awarded A.C. Cruz Construction the P7,666,507.55 contract for infrastructure works on the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project, Phase I in Bacolod City, financed by a 1983 World Bank loan. Works began on 1 August 1990. In April 1991, Candido M. Fajutag, Jr. was appointed Project Engineer and approved Variation/Extra Work Order No. 1 for excavation and road filling. On 6 May 1991 A.C. Cruz submitted its fourth billing, which Fajutag found unsupported by required documents and actual fieldwork.

Discovery of Irregularities and Termination

Fajutag issued Work Instruction No. 1 demanding proof of concrete pouring, survey results, volume calculations, material tests and demolition orders; the contractor ignored it. His verification revealed no genuine excavation or road filling. Key deficiencies included missing topographic maps, discarded survey sheets, lack of laboratory tests, inflated cut-and-fill volumes contrary to technical specifications, and absence of disposal records. On 27 June 1991 the Project Office recommended contract termination. In August 1991 the Inventory and Acceptance Committee assessed only 40.89% completion (P3,433,713.10 of an adjusted P8,397,225.09) and referred the contractor’s suspension of work to the Legal Department. NHA rescinded the contract on 29 August 1991 for unilateral abandonment, though A.C. Cruz continued intermittent work pending re-award.

COA Special Audit Findings

After Triad Construction assumed the remaining work in March 1992 and paid A.C. Cruz P1,000,000 for post-inventory accomplishments, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a special audit. COA uncovered ghost activities—nonexistent excavation and filling—and substandard workmanship. Laboratory tests confirmed deficiencies. Although the fourth billing remained unpaid, A.C. Cruz was overpaid by P232,628.35 through Triad, exceeding the net unpaid balance.

Criminal Information and Motion to Quash

On 5 March 2001 an information was filed charging Lazarte and co-accused with violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), for conniving to pay unwarranted public funds of P232,628.35 to A.C. Cruz despite no work being performed. On 2 October 2006 Lazarte moved to quash the information, alleging it failed to state an offense, conformed to form, inform him of the nature and cause of the accusations, and specify individual participation, and that the Sandiganbayan lost jurisdiction after dismissal of certain co-accused.

Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions

On 2 March 2007 the Sandiganbayan First Division denied Lazarte’s motion to quash for lack of merit, ruling that alleged deficiencies were matters of defense for trial. It granted co-accused motions to quash where participation was not sufficiently alleged. On 18 October 2007 it denied Lazarte’s motion for reconsideration, holding that the prosecution’s memoranda of 27 July 2004 and 30 May 2006 adequately particularized probable cause and that factual disputes should be resolved at trial.

Issues on Motion to Quash

Lazarte asserted that (1) the information did not state a crime; (2) it failed prescribed form and constitutional notice requirements; (3) it omitted his specific acts and abuses; (4) no damage was caused; and (5) Sandiganbayan lost jurisdiction because his position was salary grade 26.

Legal Standards for Information Sufficiency and Motion to Quash

Under Rule 110, Sec. 6, an information is sufficient if it names the accused, cites the statute, alleges acts or omissions constituting the offense, names the offended party, and states approximate time and place. For RA 3019 § 3(e), essential elements are: (a) public office or conspiracy; (b) wrongful act in official capacity; (c) undue injury or unwarranted benefit; and (d) manifest partiality, bad faith or gross negligence. A motion to quash tests whether alleged facts, if admitted, establish the crime’s essential elements.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Denial of Motion to Quash

The Supreme Court emphasized that denial of a motion to quash is generally not reviewable by certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion. It found

...continue reading

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