Title
People vs. Nazareno
Case
G.R. No. 168982
Decision Date
Aug 5, 2009
PNP's firearm purchase contracts with Beltra Industries faced overpricing allegations; Sandiganbayan acquitted respondents, citing flawed COA audit and ineligibility for AFP's lower pricing program. SC upheld acquittal, barring appeal due to double jeopardy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 124452)

Antecedents of the Case

The procurement issues arose from three contracts between the PNP and Beltra Industries for the purchase of Caliber .45 Thompson Brand pistols, totaling purchases over P105 million. Allegations surfaced regarding overpricing, prompting the creation of an investigatory committee by then President Fidel V. Ramos, which found no evidence of collusion or overpricing. In contrast, a special audit team by the Commission on Audit noted significant price discrepancies when compared to the Armed Forces of the Philippines' purchasing rates and subsequently led to charges of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against the respondents.

Trial Proceedings and Defense

During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence primarily based on audit findings that indicated overpricing in the PNP procurement compared to AFP prices. The defense contended that the AFP's procurement process, utilizing the Foreign Military Sales program, could not serve as a valid basis for price comparison due to differing procurement contexts. Witnesses from the tri-agency committee affirmed the absence of irregularities in the procurement transactions.

Verdict of Acquittal

The Sandiganbayan acquitted the respondents, reasoning that the prosecution failed to demonstrate substantial overpricing as claimed. The court determined that the comparison made with AFP prices was inherently inadequate without a proper canvass of local market prices. The Sandiganbayan emphasized the necessity for a comprehensive price comparison that includes actual market suppliers to substantiate claims of overpricing.

Petition for Review

The People of the Philippines filed a petition for review under Rule 45, requesting a reversal of the acquittal. The key issues raised included alleged judicial notice of US laws, reliance on defense witnesses regarding the legality of certain transactions, and a misapprehension of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Respondents' Position

The respondents challenged the petition, asserting that the principles of double jeopardy protect them from further prosecution following their acquittal. They maintained that the petition sought to address errors that essentially amounted to reconsideration of the acquittal rather than demonstrating any grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan.

Court's Ruling

The Co

...continue reading

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