Title
Supreme Court
Lorenzo vs. Sandiganbayan, 6th Division
Case
G.R. No. 242506-10
Decision Date
Sep 14, 2022
Alleged anomalous 2003 fertilizer procurement by DA and NFA favoring Philphos; charges dismissed due to inordinate delay and lack of evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 134774)

Applicable Law

  • Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) are relevant to the case. Specifically, Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 is concerned with "causing undue injury to any party" or giving unwarranted benefits.

Procedural History

  • The Ombudsman filed five criminal informations against Lorenzo, Yap, and Tomas A. Guibani for alleged violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The alleged misconduct included a failure to conduct public bidding and favoritism towards Philphos during the procurement process.

Factual Background

  • The procurement involved significant funds totaling approximately Php 432 million allocated for the GMA Rice Program, with specific contracts awarded to Philphos without the required competitive bidding, citing urgency in distribution for the agricultural season.

Allegations and Ombudsman Findings

  • The Ombudsman found that Lorenzo and Yap conspired to favor Philphos by issuing guidelines that circumvented the competitive public bidding process. They were said to act with manifest partiality in favor of Philphos, although a lack of evident government prejudice was noted, which dismissed additional charges pertinent to undue injury.

Motions to Quash

  • Both Lorenzo and Yap filed motions to quash the informations based on two primary arguments: the allegations did not constitute an offense and inordinate delay in the investigation violated their rights to speedy disposition of cases.

Sandiganbayan Ruling

  • The Sandiganbayan denied the motions, stating that the informations sufficiently alleged the necessary elements for a violation under R.A. 3019. It interpreted that evidentiary issues should be addressed during a full trial rather than at the motion to quash stage.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Speedy Disposition

  • The Supreme Court emphasized the right to speedy disposition of cases, finding that the Ombudsman’s delay in filing the criminal informations violated this right. The delay was particularly noted as exceeding 14 years, counting from the inception of the investigation in 2003 to the filing of the charges in 2018.

Rationale for Dismissal

  • The Court highlighted the importance of the right to a speedy trial being applicable in the context of preliminary investigations and emphasized that both petitioners had timely invoked this right. The Court also found that inordinate delays experienced by the petitioners were unjustified by the prosecution.

Evidence Aliunde

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan misapplied the rule regarding the advancement of evidence aliunde. The Court noted that the Ombudsman had previously dismissed similar complain

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.