Case Summary (G.R. No. 164577)
Background and Charges
Respondents were charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for entering into contracts related to the construction of the Mabalacat-Clark Spur Road and Clark Perimeter Road projects without public bidding, allegedly at prices 60% to 167% higher than typical costs, resulting in undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to selected private contractors. The timeframe covered was November 15, 1996, to May 7, 1998, in the Municipality of Mabalacat, Pampanga.
Pre-Trial Proceedings and Administrative Parallel Case
Prior to trial, a motion for reconsideration and re-investigation was filed, leading to referrals to the Commission on Audit (COA) to verify overpricing. The Ombudsman directed the prosecution to proceed with the trial despite conflicting recommendations from special prosecutors. An administrative case involving some of the accused was concurrently filed and eventually dismissed or resolved in favor of the respondents by the Court of Appeals (CA), which held that the absence of public bidding was justified and contractual irregularities did not invalidate the transactions.
Issues for Trial
The Sandiganbayan identified as key issues:
- Whether the projects should have been subjected to public bidding under Presidential Decree No. 1594, as amended.
- Whether there was overpricing in the construction costs.
- Whether the government suffered undue injury.
- Whether respondents acted with bad faith and manifest partiality.
- Whether there was conspiracy among the accused.
Trial and Demurrers to Evidence
The prosecution presented a single witness from the Ombudsman's legal office. After admitting evidence, the prosecution rested. The respondents then filed demurrers to evidence, arguing lack of personal knowledge of the witness, failure to prove overpricing beyond citing Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) "Typical Construction Costs, 1999," and reliance on the CA’s prior ruling validating the contracts in the administrative case. The Sandiganbayan initially denied the demurrers but reversed its position on reconsideration, granting them and dismissing the criminal cases due to insufficient evidence and taking into account the CA decision as persuasive authority.
Petition for Review and Legal Issues Raised
The Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition for review under Rule 45, raising:
- Whether the negotiated contracts conformed to the requirements of P.D. 1594.
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in adopting the CA’s findings from the administrative case despite the criminal nature of the present case.
The respondents contended that the petition violated their right against double jeopardy.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Procedure and Double Jeopardy
The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s petition under Rule 45 was procedurally improper. Under Rule 122, an appeal by the prosecution from a judgment granting a demurrer to evidence—which is tantamount to an acquittal—would violate double jeopardy unless grave abuse of discretion is shown. The proper remedy to challenge a dismissal on demurrer to evidence is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition under Rule 45 does not allow re-examination of the sufficiency of evidence, which would be necessary to overturn an acquittal.
Distinction Between Appeal and Certiorari Review
The Court clarified that appeals and certiorari are mutually exclusive remedies; the prosecution cannot invoke appeal (or Rule 45 petition) in this context without infringing on constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Certiorari is the correct procedure to question dismissal due to demurrer to evidence but requires showing of grave abuse of discretion.
On the Substance of the Issues
Even if the petition were procedurally correct, the alleged questions are not purely legal but mixed questions of law and fact requiring re-evaluation of evidence, which is beyond the scope of Rule 45. Determining whether Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was violated involves examining factual evidence of overpricing, bad faith, and conspiracy—tasks reserved for the trial court. The Court also noted the divergence in standards between administrative and criminal proceedings: findings in administrative cases do not preclude criminal prosecution unless they involve the same facts and evidence, which the Sandiganbayan found was not so in this case.
Principle on Dismissal of Administrative Case vs. Criminal Prosecution
The Court reaffirmed the principle that dismissal of an administrative case does not bar criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts due to differences in standards of proof, procedures, and sanctions. However, if both proceedings are based on identical evidence and the administrative body has already ruled that facts do not support culpability, requiring the accused to present evidence in the criminal case after the prosecution failed to meet its burden would be futile.
Conclusion
The Court dismissed the petition due to procedural impropriety and
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 164577)
Background and Nature of the Case
- The case involves a criminal prosecution under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, against respondents Victorino A. Basco, Romeo S. David, and Rogelio L. Luis, all former high-ranking officers of government corporations.
- The respondents were charged with entering into contracts for the construction of the Mabalacat-Clark Spur Road and the Clark Perimeter Road without public bidding, allegedly causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to private contractors.
- The Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 25752.
- The case raises issues about the legality of negotiated contracts without public bidding, overpricing allegations, and whether the respondents acted with manifest partiality and bad faith.
Facts of the Case
- The respondents held key positions: Basco as Chairman of BCDA, David as President/CEO of CDC/CIAC, and Luis as President/CEO of PNCC.
- The contracts in question were entered between November 15, 1996, to May 7, 1998.
- Contracts were allegedly overpriced by 60 to 167% above typical roadway construction costs.
- The prosecution based overpricing allegations in part on the DPWH's 1999 "Typical Construction Costs" table.
- Before trial, respondents filed motions for leave to file demurrers to evidence, arguing the prosecution's evidence was insufficient and largely speculative.
- The Sandiganbayan initially denied these demurrers in April 2004 but later reversed itself in July 2004, granting the demurrers and dismissing the cases.
Procedural History
- After arraignment, respondents pleaded not guilty.
- The Sandiganbayan issued a Pre-trial Order on August 23, 2002, framing the issues to resolve during trial.
- The prosecution presented one witness and formally rested its case.
- Respondents filed motions to dismiss based on insufficiency of evidence, hearsay testimony, lack of proof of overpricing, and prior administrative rulings upholding contract validity.
- The Sandiganbayan initially denied the motions but granted reconsideration in a July 23, 2004 resolution, effectively acquitting the respondents.
- The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Ombudsman, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the dismissal.
Issues Presented for Resolution
- Whether the respondents’ act of entering into negotiated contracts without public bidding complied with the requirements of P.D. 1594 and its amendments.
- Whether the Sandiganbayan could properly adopt the Court of Appeals’ findings from an administrative case involving the same contracts despite the different natures of the proceedings (criminal vs. administrative).
- Whether the prosecution could appeal the Sandiganbayan’s grant of the demurrers to evidence without violating the accused's constitutional right against double jeopardy.
- Whether the petition for review under Rule 45 was the proper procedural remedy for assailing the dismissal order.
Legal Principles and Doctrines Established
- A prosecution cannot appeal a ruling granting a demurrer to evidence of the accused, which is tantamount to an acquittal, unless it can prove the court committed grave abuse of discretion.
- The constitutional right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution from appealing an acquittal except where g