Duterte v Sandiganbayan

289 SCRA 721 ; 1998

FACTS: In 1990, the Davao City Local Automation Project was launched by the city government of Davao.
The goal of said project was to make Davao City a leading center for computer systems and technology
development. It also aimed to provide consultancy and training services and to assist all local government units
in Mindanao set up their respective computer systems. To implement the project, a Computerization Program
Committee was formed. The Committees duty was to conduct a thorough study of the different computers in the
market, taking into account the quality and acceptability of the products, the reputation and track record of the
manufacturers and/or their Philippine distributors, the availability of service centers in the country that can
undertake preventive maintenance of the computer hardwares to ensure a long and uninterrupted use and, last
but not the least, the capability of the manufacturers and/or Philippine distributors to design and put into place
the computer system complete with the flow of paperwork, forms to be used and personnel required.

Following these guidelines, the Committee recommended the acquisition of Goldstar computers, exclusively
distributed in the Philippines by Systems Plus, Inc. (SPI). After obtaining prior clearance from COA Auditor
Kintanar, the Committee proceeded to negotiate with SPI, represented by its President Rodolfo V. Jao and
Executive Vice President Manuel T. Asis, for the acquisition and installation of the computer hardware and the
training of personnel for the Electronic Data-Processing Center. The total contract cost amounted to
P11,656,810.00.

On 27 November 1990, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao received a letter-complaint from a concerned
citizen, stating that some city officials are going to make a killing in the transaction. The complaint was
docketed as OMB-MIN-90-0425. However, no action was taken thereon. Thereafter, sometime in February
1991, a complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 20,550-91, was instituted before the Regional Trial Court of
Davao City, Branch 12 by Dean Pilar Braga, Hospicio C. Conanan, Jr. and Korsung Dabaw Foundation, Inc.
against the petitioners, the City Council, various city officials and SPI for the judicial declaration of nullity of
the aforestated resolutions and ordinances and the computer contract executed pursuant thereto.

On 22 February 1991, Goldstar, through its agent, Mr. S.Y. Lee sent a proposal to petitioner Duterte for the
cancellation of the computerization contract. Consequently, on 8 April 1991, the Sangguniang issued Resolution
No. 449 and Ordinance No. 53 accepting Goldstars offer to cancel the computerization contract provided the
latter return the advance payment of P1,748,521.58 to the City Treasurers Office within a period of one month.
Petitioner Duterte, as city mayor, was thus authorized to take the proper steps for the mutual cancellation of the
said contract and to sign all documents relevant thereto. Pursuant to the aforestated authority, on 6 May 1991,
petitioner Duterte, in behalf of Davao City, and SPI mutually rescinded the contract and the downpayment was
duly refunded.

A Special Audit Team of the Commission on Audit was tasked to conduct an audit of the Davao City Local
Automation Project to determine if said contract conformed to government laws and regulations. A copy of the
report was sent to petitioner Duterte by COA Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo on 7 June 1991. In the latters
transmittal letter, Chairman Domingo summarized the findings of the special audit team, thus:

1. The award of the contract for the Davao City Local Automation Project to Systems Plus, Inc., for
P11,656,810 was done thru negotiated contract rather than thru competitive public bidding in violation
of Sections 2 and 8 of PD 526. Moreover, there was no sufficient appropriation for this particular
contract in violation of Sec. 85 of PD 1445.

2. Advance payment of P1.7M was made to Systems Plus, Inc. covering 15% of the contract cost of
P11.6M in violation of Sec. 45 of PD 477 and Sec. 88 of PD 1445.

3. The cost of computer hardware and accessories under contract with Systems Plus, Inc. (SPI) differed
from the teams canvass by as much as 1200% or a total of P1.8M.

4. The City had no Information System Plan (ISP) prior to the award of the contract to SPI in direct
violation of Malacaang Memo. Order No. 287 and NCC Memo. Circular 89-1 dated June 22, 1989. This
omission resulted in undue disadvantage to the City Government.

5. To remedy the foregoing deficiencies, the team recommends that the contract with Systems Plus, Inc.
be rescinded in view of the questionable validity due to insufficient funding. Further, the provisions of
NCC-Memorandum Circular 89-1 dated June 22, 1989 regarding procurement and/or installation of
computer hardware/system should be strictly adhered to.

The city government, intent on pursuing its computerization plan, decided to follow the audit teams
recommendation and sought the assistance of the National Computer Center (NCC). After conducting the
necessary studies, the NCC recommended the acquisition of Philips computers in the amount of
P15,792,150.00. Davao City complied with the NCCs advice and hence, was finally able to obtain the needed
computers.

However, an information was filed against them, committing the crime herein charged in relation to, while in
the performance and taking advantage of their official functions, and conspiring and confederating with each
other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally enter into a negotiated contract for the purchase of
computer hardware and accessories with the Systems Plus, Incorporated for and in consideration of the amount
of PESOS: ELEVEN MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TEN
(P11,656,810.00), which contract is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government, said accused
knowing fully-well that the said acquisition cost has been overpriced by as much as twelve hundred (1200%)
percent and without subjecting said acquisition to the required public bidding.

On 27 February 1996, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and on 29 March 1996, a Supplemental
Motion for Reconsideration on the following grounds:

1. Petitioners were deprived of their right to a preliminary investigation, due process and the speedy
disposition of their case;

2. Petitioner Duterte acted in good faith and was clothed with authority to enter into the subject contract;

3. There is no contract manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government since the subject
contract has been duly rescinded.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners were deprived of their right to a preliminary investigation, due process and the
speedy disposition of their case?

HELD: NO. The constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases does not come into play only when political
considerations are involved. The Constitution makes no such distinction. While political motivation in Tatad
may have been a factor in the undue delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation therein to justify
the invocation of their right to speedy disposition of cases, the particular facts of each case must be taken into
consideration in the grant of the relief sought. In the Tatad case, we are reminded:

In a number of cases, this Court has not hesitated to grant the so-called radical relief and to spare the
accused from the undergoing the rigors and expense of a full-blown trial where it is clear that he has
been deprived of due process of law or other constitutional guaranteed rights. Of course, it goes without
saying that in the application of the doctrine enunciated in those cases, particularly regard must be taken
of the facts and circumstances peculiar to its case.

In Alviso vs. Sandiganbayan, the Court observed that the concept of speedy disposition of cases is a relative
term and must necessarily be a flexible concept and that the factors that may be considered and balanced are the
length of the delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the
delay.

Petitioners in this case, however, could not have urged the speedy resolution of their case because they were
completely unaware that the investigation against them was still on-going. Peculiar to this case, we reiterate, is
the fact that petitioners were merely asked to comment, and not file counter-affidavits which is the procedure to
follow in a preliminary investigation. After giving their explanation and after four long years of being in the
dark, petitioners, naturally, had reason to assume that the charges against them had already been dismissed.

On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman failed to present any plausible, special or even novel reason
which could justify the four-year delay in terminating its investigation. Its excuse for the delay-the many layers
of review that the case had to undergo and the meticulous scrutiny it had to entail has lost its novelty and is no
longer appealing, as was the invocation in the Tatad case. The incident before us does not involve complicated
factual and legal issues, specially in view of the fact that the subject computerization contract had been mutually
cancelled by the parties thereto even before the Anti-Graft League filed its complaint.

The Office of the Ombudsman capitalizes on petitioners three motions for extension of the time to file comment
which it imputed for the delay. However, the delay was not caused by the motions for extension. The delay
occurred after petitioners filed their comment. Between 1992-1996, petitioners were under no obligation to
make any move because there was no preliminary investigation within the contemplation of Section 4, Rule II
of A.O. No. 07 to speak of in the first place.