l&epttblic of tbe flbilippine%

~upreme QCourt
;iffilanila

SECOND DIVISION

ARTURO 0. RADAZA, G.R. No. 201380

Petitioner,
Present:

PERLAS-BERNABE, SAJ,
Chairperson,
versus
HERNANDO,
INTING,
GAERLAN, and
ROSARIO,* JJ.
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and
'PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated:
PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION

HERNANDO, J.:

This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition1 under Rule 65 of the

Rules of Court assailing the November 2, 2011 2 and February 21, 2012 3
Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan in SB-08-CRM-0275.

The Relevant Antecedents:

In 2006, the Province of Cebu was designated as the venue for the 12th
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit that was to be held
on January 9-15, 2007.

* Designated as additional Member per S.O. No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.
1
Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 3-52.
2 Id. at 53-57; penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and concurred in by Associate Justices
Efren de la Cruz and Rafael R. Lagos.
3
Id. at 58-60; penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and concurred in by Associate Justices
Efren de la Cruz and Rafael R. Lagos.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 201380

Beautification projects then commenced in preparation for the event.

Among such projects were the acquisition and installation of street lighting
facilities and decorative lampposts in the focal thoroughfares of Cebu,
Mandaue, and Lapu-Lapu cities (hereafter, the street lighting project). The
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) was the main
government agency tapped to facilitate the street lighting project.

On January 9, 2007, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), Central

Visayas, Panaghugpong sa Kabus sa Dakbayan-KADAMAY, Kilusang
Magbubukid sa Pilipinas, the Panaghuisa sa Gagmay 'ng Mangingisda sa
Sugbo, and Alyansa sa Mamumu-o sa Sugbo wrote the Office of the
Ombudsman for the Visayas (Ombudsman-Visayas). 4 Their letter alleged
anomalies in pricing and called for the investigation of the transactions entered
into by the DPWH in connection to the street lighting project. 5

On March 23, 2007, the Ombudsman-Visayas acted upon the January 9,

2007 letter and released a Final Evaluation Report6 (Report) on the matters
raised by the above organizations. In the Report, the Ombudsman-Visayas
found prima facie evidence of overpricing resulting from the purported
collusion between the winning bidders, the private contractors, and the City
Governments ofMandaue and Lapu-Lapu.

Prompted by its discoveries, the Ombudsman-Visayas recommended the

institution of criminal charges and administrative cases against the persons and
government officials allegedly involved in the street lighting project
irregularities. Among the respondents was herein petitioner Arturo 0. Radaza
(Radaza), then the City Mayor ofLapu-Lapu City.

He was initially recommended to be indicted for violation of Paragraph

(e), Section 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, as well as for administrative liability for Dishonesty/Grave
Misconduct. 7 Upon the April 2, 2007 Order 8 of the Ombudsman-Visayas,
Radaza filed his Counter-Affidavit9 on the said recommendation for criminal
and administrative charges against him.

In its January 24, 2008 Resolution, 10 the Ombudsman-Visayas amended

the criminal charges against Radaza and his other co-respondents (Radaza, et
al.) from violation of Section 3(e) to Section 3(g) of RA 3019. The full
criminal charges were enfleshed in an Information 11 also dated January 24,

4
Id. at 88; per March 23, 2007 Final Evaluation Report of the Ombudsman-Visayas, p. 1 thereof.
5 Id., per March 23, 2007 Final Evaluation Report of the Ombudsman-Visayas, p. 1 thereof.
6
Id. at 88-95.
7
Id. at 94.
8
Id. at 102-104.
9
Id. at 105-114; filed on May 22, 2007.
10
Id. at 115-144.
11
Id. at 145-148.
Decision 3 GR. No. 201380

2008 and approved by then Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez

(Gutierrez). 12 The accusatory portions in the January 24, 2008 Information
pertinent to Radaza read:

The undersigned Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officers of the

Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas accuse ROBERT G. LALA, GLORIA R.
DINDIN, MARLINA S. ALVIZO, PUREZA A. FERNANDEZ, AGUSTINITO
P. HERMOSO, LUIS A. GALANG, RESTITUTO R. DIANO,
BUENAVENTURA C. PAJO, ARTURO 0. RADAZA, ISABELO A.
BRAZA, of the offense of VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(g) OF REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 3019, AS AMENDED, otherwise known as THE ANTI-GRAFT
AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, committed as follows:

That in or about the month of March 2007, and for some time prior
or subsequent thereto, at the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused GLORIA R.
DINDIN, a public officer, being then the Assistant Regional
Director of the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) Regional Office No. VII, Cebu City, with authority to
represent the Republic of the Philippines (through the DPWH) in a
contract, accused ROBERT G. LALA, and PUREZA A.
FERNANDEZ, also public officers being the Regional Director,
and OIC Chief, Maintenance Division, respectively, of the DPWH
Regional Office No. VII, and accused ARTURO 0. RADAZA,
JULITO H. CUIZON, FERNANDO T. TAGAAN, JR., ROGELIO
D. VELOSO, also public officers being then the City Mayor, City
Engineer, and Engineer IV, of Lapu-Lapu City, and as such officers
are tasked to prepare the Program of Works and Detailed
Estimates for infrastructure projects, and accused MARLINA S.
ALVIZO, AGUSTINITO P. HERMOSO, LUIS A. GALANG,
RESTITUTO R. DIANO, and BUENAVENTUKA C. PAJO, also
public officers, being the Chairman and Members, respectively, of
the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the DPWH Regional
Office No. VII, and as such officers are responsible for ensuring
that procurement contracts are awarded in accordance with the
standards set forth in R.A. No. 9184, and shall, among others,
conduct the evaluation of bids and recommend award of contracts,
in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office,
conniving and confederating together and mutually helping
each other and with accused ISABELO A. BRAZA, a private
individual, being the President and Chairman of the Board of
FABMIK Construction and Equipment Supply Co., Inc., with
deliberate intent, and with intent of gain and to defraud, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, on behalf of
the Republic of the Philippines, prepare and approve the
Program of Works and Detailed Estimates for the supply and
installation of street lighting facilities consisting of one hundred
thirty-nine (139) sets of 7M-single-arm street light poles, costing
about Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P72,500.00),
Philippine Currency, per set; and sixty (60) sets of 9M-double-arm
street light poles costing about Eighty-Five Thousand Five Hundred

i2 Id.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 201380

Pesos (P85,500.00), Philippine Currency, per set; along the

Mandaue-Mactan Bridge I to Punta Engafio Section, Lapu-
Lapu City (Contract ID No. 06HO0050), conduct the bidding,
recommend the award of the contract to FABMIK Construction
and Equipment Supply Co., Inc., and afterwards enter into the
corresponding contract with accused ISABELO A. BRAZA
which contract or transaction was manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the Republic of the Philippines, as the said
cost of P72,500.00 and P85,500.00 exceeded the prevailing price of
only about Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00), Philippine Currency,
per set of single-arm assembly, and Seven Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos (P7,500.00), Philippine Currency, per set of double arm
assembly, to the damage and prejudice of the government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Cebu City (for Quezon City), Philippines, 24 January 2008.

BAIL BOND RECOMMENDED: P30,000.00 (each) 13 (Emphasis

supplied.)

The case was docketed as SB-08-CRM-0275 before the Sandiganbayan,

First Division (Sandiganbayan).

On May 5, 2008, Radaza filed a Motion for Reconsideration 14 of the

January 24, 2008 Ombudsman-Visayas Resolution (Motion for
Reconsideration) before the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman-Central).
He raised the main issue of whether his mere signature on the Program of
Works and Detailed Estimates (POWE) sufficiently established probable cause
against him for violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019.

On May 20, 2008, pending resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration,

Radaza filed a Manifestation with Urgent Motion to Defer Issuance of Warrant
of Arrest, or to Recall It and/or Hold in Abeyance Its Implementation If
Already Issued 15 before the Sandiganbayan (Motion to Defer/Recall/Hold
Warrant of Arrest). Radaza likewise put up his bail bond. 16

Still pending resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration and the

Motion to Defer/Recall/Hold Warrant of Arrest, the Sandiganbayan scheduled
Radaza's arraigmnent on June 6, 2008. Anticipating an imminent waiver of his
objections to the validity of the Information against him, Radaza filed on June
3, 2008 an Omnibus Motion for Judicial Redetennination of Probable Cause,
and for Quashal of Information, or for Reinvestigation with Prayer for
Suspension of Further Proceedings Including Arraignment Set on June 6,

13
Id. at 146-147.
14
Id.at149-159.
15
Id. at 16.
16 Id.
· Decision 5 GR. No. 201380
'

2008 17 (Omnibus Motion for Redetermination of Probable Cause) before the

Sandiganbayan.

In his Omnibus Motion for Redetermination of Probable Cause, Radaza

assailed anew the validity of the January 24, 2008 Information. While
admitting the initial finding of probable cause by the Sandiganbayan when it
issued the warrants of arrest pertinent to the case, Radaza sought a judicial
redetermination due to an allegedly incomplete finding of probable cause
effected by the pendency of his Motion for Reconsideration of the January 24,
2008 Resolution before the Ombuds1nan-Central.

The Sandiganbayan denied Radaza's Omnibus Motion for

Redetermination of Probable Cause. 18 It declared in its August 14, 2008
Resolution that to judicially pass upon the issue of probable cause would be
redundant and superfluous as it had already issued the warrant for Radaza's
arrest.

On September 23, 2008, Radaza was conditionally arraigned as one of

the pre-requisites to his Urgent Motion to Travel Abroad. 19

Upon motion by the Ombudsman-Visayas, 20 however, the January 24,

2008 Information was ordered withdrawn by the Sandiganbayan. 21 In the same
vein, the Sandiganbayan reconsidered its August 14, 2008 Resolution. In its
November 3, 2008 Order, 22 the Sandiganbayan granted Radaza's Motion for
Reconsideration of its August 14, 2008 Resolution 23 and ordered the
prosecution to reinvestigate the case.

The Ombudsman-Visayas thus continued with the investigation of the

case and issued a Supplemental Resolution24 thereon dated May 4, 2009. In
the Supplemental Resolution, the Ombudsman-Visayas mainly reiterated its
earlier findings contained in its January 24, 2008 Resolution, but reverted to
its original criminal accusations of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019
against Radaza, et al.

17 Id.atl60-175.
18 Id. at 187-194; penned by then Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice and former Supreme Court ChiefJustice
Diosdado M. Peralta, Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada, and then Sandiganbayan
Associate Justice and current Supreme Court Chief Justice Alexander G Gesmundo.
19 Records, pp. 228-230.
20
Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 245-247.
21 Id. at 251-252; September 30, 2008 Resolution issued by Associate Justices Gregory S. Ong, Jose R.
Hernandez and Roland B. Jurado.
22 Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 253-256.
23
Id. at 253.
24 In OMB-V-C-07-0124-C (SB-08-CRM-0273).
Decision 6 G.R. No. 201380

Consequently, also on May 4, 2009; 5 the prosecution filed its

Manifestation and Motion to Admit Attached Amended Information26 charging
Radaza, et al. accordingly under Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The Amended
Information, 27 also approved by Ombudsman Gutierrez, made the following
accusations as regards Radaza:

The undersigned Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas accuses ROBERT

G. LALA, GLORIA R. DINDIN, MARLINA S. ALVIZO, PUREZA A.
FERNANDEZ, CRESENCIO T. BAGOLOR, AGUSTINITO P. HERMOSO,
LUIS A. GALANG, RESTITUTO R. DIANO, AYAON S. MANGGIS,
MARILYN A. OJEDA, TERESA B. BERNIDO, ARTURO 0. RADAZA,
JULITO H. CUIZON, FERNANDO T. TAGAAN, JR., ROGELIO D. VELOSO
and ISABELO A. BRAZA, of the offense of VIOLATION OF SECTION
3(e), R.A. 3019, AS AMENDED, otherwise known as THE ANTI-GRAFT
AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, committed as follows;

That on or about 6 February 2007 and for sometime prior or

subsequent thereto, at the City of Cebu, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named accused, ROBERT G. LALA, GLORIA R. DINDIN,
MAR.LINA S. ALVIZO, PUREZAA, FERNANDEZ, CRESENCIO
T. BAGOLOR, AGUSTINITO P. HERMOSO, LUIS A. GALANG,
RESTITUTO R. DIANO, AYAON S. MANGGIS, MARILYN A.
OJEDA, TERESA B. BERNIDO, ARTURO 0. RADAZA,
JULITO H. CUIZON, FERNANDO T. TAGAAN, JR., ROGELIO
D. VELOSO, public officers, being the Regional Director, Assistant
Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director and Chairperson,
Bids and Awards Committee [BAC], Officer-In-Charge Chief,
Maintenance Division and BAC Member, Officer-In-Charge
Assistant Chief Maintenance Division and BAC Technical Working
Group [TWG] Member, Regional Legal Officer and BAC Member,
Chief, Planning and Design Division and BAC~Member, Chief,
Administrative Division and BAC Member, and BAC-TWG
Members, all of the Department of Public V✓orks and Highways
[DPWlI]-VII, respectively, City Mayor, City Engineer, Assistant
City Engineer and Engineer IV, respectively, all of Lapu-Lapu City,
Province of Cebu, in such capacity and committing the offense in
relation to office, conniving and confederating together and
mutually helping with each other, and with ISABELO A.
BRAZA, a private individual, in his capacity as President and
Chairman of the Board, FABMIK Construction and Equipment
Supply Co,, Inc., with deliberate intent, manifest partiality or
evident bad faith, did then. and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminaHy cause the aw~ud of Contract ID No. 06H00050 for
the SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTING
FACILITIES (consisting of 1.0 LOT or 139 units of Single Am1
Poles and 60 units of Double Arm Poles, or a total of 199 units),
MANDAUE-MACTAN BRIDGE 1 TO PUNTA ENGANO
SECTION, LAPU-LAPU CITY, executed by and between

25
Also mentioned as May 7, 2009 in some parts of the records.
26
Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 393.
27
Id. at 387-392.
· Decision 7 G.R. No. 201380

GLORIA R. DINDIN (in her capacity as DPWH-VII Assistant

Regional Director) and accused ISABELO A. BRAZA (President
and Chainnan of FABMIK Construction and Equipment Supply
Company, Inc.), for EIGHTY THREE MILLION NINE
HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P83,935,000.00), by preparing the Program of Works and
Estimates [POWE], Approved Budget for the Contract [ABC]
and other related documents, and conducting the procurement
process, despite absence of legal requirements for a valid
procurement process under Republic Act 9184, otherwise
known as Government Procurement Reform Act, aside from
awarding and implementing the project at an excessive price of
P83,935,000.00 which is in excess by EIGHTEEN MILLION
FORTY FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY PESOS
[P18,045,890.00] using the allegedly falsified invoices, or in excess
by THIRTEEN MILLION NINETY TWO THOUSAND NINETY
PESOS AND 85/100 (P13,092,090.85) using the allegedly genuine
invoices, as against the Ombudsman [0MB] computation of SIXTY
FIVE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND
ONE HUNDRED NINE PESOS AND 99/100 [P65,889,109.99],
which in either computation is excessive as it is beyond the ten
percent [10%] allowable price variance under COA Circular No.
85-55A, thereby giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference to the contractor, FABMIK Construction and
Equipment Supply Company, Inc. to the damage and prejudice
of the government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Cebu City [for Quezon City], Philippines, 04 May 2009.

BAIL BOND RECOMMENDED: P30,000.00 each. 28 Emphasis

supplied.)

On October 12, 2009, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution29 admitting

the Amended Information.

Radaza filed an Omnibus Motion for Clarification and Reiteration of

Reinvestigation. 30 He claimed that, while not disputing the fact that a
reinvestigation was conducted, the Office of the Special Prosecutor should
have been the one conducting the reinvestigation, but the task was delegated
to the Ombudsman-Visayas. Thus, Radaza opined that he was deprived of his
right to participate in the reinvestigation. He believed that he was not accorded
due process and that the findings in the Supplemental Resolution and the
accusations in the Amended Infonnation shall not bind him. He also reiterated
his request for reinvestigation.

28 Id. at 388-390.
29 Id. at 418-428.
30 Id. at 429-432.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 201380

On October 22, 2010, the Sandiganbayan granted Radaza's Omnibus

Motion for Clarification and Reiteration of Reinvestigation. 31 Pertinent part
thereof is hereunder quoted:

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the separate omnibus

motions of accused-movant Radaza and accused-movants Bernido, Manggis
and Ojeda, insofar as the sought preliminary investigation is concerned is
GRANTED.

Accordingly, this case is hereby remanded to the Office of the

Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor for preliminary investigation of violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The said office/s are hereby ordered to complete the
said preliminary investigation and to submit to the Court the result of the said
investigation within sixty ( 60) days from notice.

xxxx

SO ORDERED. 32

Despite the grant, Radaza filed a Manifestation with Motion to Stop the
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas from Conducting the
Preliminary Investigation. 33 He questioned the Office of the Special
Prosecutor, who, instead of conducting the reinvestigation itself, turned over
the duty to the Ombudsman-Visayas. He ascribed bias upon the Ombudsman-
Visayas as it issued consistently-adverse findings against him, and that its
conduct of reinvestigation shall simply be moro-moro.

Nonetheless, the Ombudsman-Visayas proceeded to issue its Joint

Resolution34 dated April 14, 2011 directing the filing of an information against
Radaza, ainong other respondents and other additional persons, for violation
of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The Joint Resolution was approved by then
Acting Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro (Casimiro).

In the meantime, the Sandiganbayan denied 35 Radaza's Manifestation

with Motion to Stop the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas from
Conducting the Preliminary Investigation.

For its part, the Ombudsman-Visayas filed a Compliance and Motion for
Summary Amendment of the Information 36 (Motion for Summary
Amendment). The Ornbudsman-Visayas moved to smnmarily re-amend the

31
Id. at 444-463; penned by Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Efren De la Cruz and concurred in by
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Rodolfo Ponferrada and former Sandiganbayan Associate Justice and
incumbent Supreme Court Justice Alexander Gesmundo.
32
Id. at 463.
33
Id. at 465-469.
34
Id. at 485-648.
35
Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 656-663; penned by Associate Justice Rafael R. Lagos and concurred in by Associate
Justices Efren N. De la Cruz and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada.
36
Id. at 672-679.
·. Decision 9 G.R. No. 201380

Amended Information to modify the accused persons therein and to set their
arraignment for Criminal Cases Nos. SB-08-CRM-0275 and SB-08-CRM-
0270.

Radaza, however, filed a Comment/Opposition with Motion to Quash

Amended Information (Motion to Quash Amended Information). 37 He pointed
out that, as the prosecution itself had declared, the final approving authority of
the Joint Resolution was not Acting Ombudsman Casimiro, but the then
newly-appointed Ombudsman Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales.

He moved to quash the Amended Information, which allegedly was the

result of the reinvestigation concluded by the Ombudsman-Visayas in its May
4, 2009 Supplemental Resolution of the original charge for violation of
Section 3(g) of RA 3019. Radaza theorizes that the Amended Information
cannot be issued ahead of the Joint Resolution, which contained the
preliminary investigation conducted on the charge of Section 3(e) of RA 3019
against him.

The Assailed Sandiganbayan

Rulings:

The Sandiganbayan resolved Radaza's Motion to Quash Amended

Information in the negative. It held that the absence or lack of preliminary
investigation is not a ground to quash the Amended Information charging
Radaza with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, nor does it render the
Amended Information defective as to affect jurisdiction over the same which
the Sandiganbayan has already assumed. The Sandiganbayan so declared in its
November 2, 2011 Resolution: 38

WHEREFORE, accused-movant Arturo Radaza's Opposition and Motion

to Quash Amended Information dated September 22, 2011, and Prosecution's
Motion for the Summary Amendment of the Information are DENIED. The
Prosecution's Compliance dated September 5, 2011, is hereby considered
sufficient compliance with the Resolution of the Court of August 25, 2011.

Let the arraignment of the accused in this case be set on November 24,
2011, at 8:30 in the morning.

SO ORDERED. 39

The Sandiganbayan likewise denied Radaza's Motion for

Reconsideration40 in its February 21, 2012 Resolution41 in the following wise:

37
Id. at 683-689.
38 Rollo, Vol. l,pp.53-57.
39
Id. at 57.
40 Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 702-709.
41 Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 58-60.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 201380

WHEREFORE, accused-movant Arturo Radaza's subject Motion for

Reconsideration is DENIED and the Court's assailed Resolution of November
2, 2011, is reiterated. x x x

SO ORDERED. 42

Thus, this Petition for Certiorari before this Court.

Issues

Petitioner Arturo 0. Radaza raises the following questions:

A.

x x x [The Sandiganbayan] committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied

petitioner's Motion to Quash the Amended Information. The Amended
Information having been filed pursuant to the [Ombudsman-Visayas' May 4,
2009 Supplemental Resolution] signed by then [Ombudsman] Gutierrez and
which pertained to a different supply contract, the same did not bear the
approval of the new Ombudsman at the time it was submitted to the
[Sandiganbayan on August 24, 2011] to accompany the Joint Resolution
approved by acting Ombudsman Casimiro on [July 18, 2011. x x x [An]
Information may not be filed by an officer who has no authority to do so. Then
[Ombudsman] Gutierrez's authority on the Amended Information having
become functus officio when [Ombudsman] Carpio-Morales was appointed on
[July 26, 2011 ], the Sandiganbayan could not have acquired jurisdiction over
the Amended Infom1ation and arraign herein petitioner pursuant thereto.
Quashal thereof is thereof in order.

B.

Had respondent People, through the [OSG], performed its commitment as well
as obligation to allow [Ombudsman] Carpio-Morales to review and approve the
Joint Resolution, then she would have known that, even without the benefit of
trial, there is no probable cause to indict herein petitioner under either Section
3(e) or Section 3(g) of [RA 3019]. Lack of probable cause is a ground to quash
the Amended Information. 43

Our Ruling

The Petition must be dismissed.

Denials of a motion to quash are

improper subjects of a petition
for certiorari before the Supreme
Court.

42
Id. at 59.
43
Id. at 33.
• Decision 11 G.R. No. 201380

In the present Petition for Certiorari, Radaza assails the Resolutions of

the Sandiganbayan denying his Opposition and Motion to Quash Amended
Information. On technical grounds alone, the Court finds no reason to sustain
Radaza.

Foremost in our rules of criminal procedure is that motions to quash are

interlocutory orders that are generally unreviewable by appeal or by
certiorari. 44 If the motion to quash is denied, it means that the criminal
Information remains pending with the court, which then must proceed with the
trial to determine whether the accused is innocent or guilty of the crime
charged against him. 45 Only when the court promulgates a final judgment of
conviction can the accused question the deficiencies of the Information by
raising them as errors by the trial court and as an additional ground for his
exoneration in his appeal. 46

Jurisprudence explains the reason for the rule:

The reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or
judgment, and not from interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity
of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and
decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal. If such
appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case should necessarily be
delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur
unnecessary expenses; for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as
incidental questions may be raised by him and interlocutory orders rendered or
issued by the lower court. 47

More importantly, certiorari is a remedy of last resort. The special civil

action of certiorari will not lie unless its petitioner has no other plain, speedy,
or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The fact that another
remedy - to proceed to trial - is ready, available, and at the full disposal of the
accused herein post-denial of his motion to quash already bars his remedial
refuge in certiorari.

As with any general rule, Radaza's erroneous understanding of criminal

procedure may be overlooked and his Petition can be treated as an exception if
his circumstances should fall under any of the following: (1) when the court
issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion; (2) when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the
remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief; (3) in the
interest of a more enlightened and substantial justice; (4) to promote public
welfare and public policy; and ( 5) when the cases have attracted nationwide

44
Miranda v. Sandiganbayan, 815 Phil. 123, 139 (2017).
45 Id.
46 Id.
47
Id., citing Yee v. Bernabe, 521 Phil. 514, 520 (2006).
Decision 12 G.R. No. 201380

attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration

thereof. 48 Under these instances, appeal is considered an inadequate remedy
for a denied motion to quash and certiorari may be allowed instead. Radaza's
case, however, certainly does not fit in any of the aforecited jurisprudential
exceptions, thus deserving the least application of liberality.

Even if the Petition for Certiorari would be so allowed, it appears to

have transgressed upon another vital rule of procedure.

Certiorari corrects errors of

jurisdiction, not errors of
judgment.

Radaza ascribes grave abuse of discretion against the Sandiganbayan in

issuing the assailed Resolutions and seeks their reversal. His grounds therefor,
however, are thoroughly misplaced.

The Court shall not tire in calling out the usual propensity of some
litigants in confounding errors of judgment for errors of jurisdiction. An error
of judgment is an error committed by a court within its jurisdiction that is
reviewable by appeal. Mere allegations of wrongful conclusions based on the
facts and the law or supposed misappreciation of evidence do not, by
themselves, rise to the level of grave abuse of discretion against the trial
court. 49 This is since -

The rationale of this rule is that, when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an
error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being
exercised when the error is committed. Otherwise, every mistake made by a
court will deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment will be a
void judgment. 50

On the other hand, errors of jurisdiction are those done outside and in
excess of a trial court's jurisdiction and committed in grave abuse of
discretion that are properly reversible by certiorari. The abuse of discretion
should clearly be grave, following the definition long-formulated by
jurisprudence:

An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse

of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and

48
Id. at 139-140.
49
Id. at 142 citing Ysidoro v. Justice Leonardo-de Castro, 681 Phil. 550 (2013).
50
Id., citing Candelaria v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, 739 Phil. 1, 8
(2014).
.
. Decision 13 G.R. No. 201380

despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility." Furthermore, the use of a

petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the
act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." From the
foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under
Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of
discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and
gross. 51

Radaza may have introduced his arguments with a generic accusation of

grave abuse of discretion. However, a plain reading of the issues raised and
discussions he propounded in his present Petition reveals that his objections
pertained to the Sandiganbayan appreciation of the evidence and application
of the law in disposing his Opposition and Motion to Quash Amended
Information. An attack against the correctness of a court's judgment, without
any real demonstration of its utter randomness and whimsicality, if any, is not
the grave abuse of discretion contemplated by certiorari proceedings. Radaza
even seeks a review of the facts and the case records in his attempt to justify
the quashal of the Amended Information against him. Such is a prayer that is
easily beyond the bounds of certiorari that is limited to an evaluation of
whether a tribunal's exercise of judicial discretion sufficiently amounted to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Lack of authority of an officer to

file an Information, while a
ground for quashal, is not a
jurisdictional defect.

A moot and academic review of the facts and the applicable law will not
merit the quashal of the Amended Information as lobbied for by Radaza in his
instant Petition.

Radaza's Petition for Certiorari first assails the Amended Information for
lack of the written authority or approval of the incumbent Ombudsman at the
time the Amended Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan. Radaza
claims that while the Amended Information was approved to be filed by then
Ombudsman Gutierrez in the Supplemental Resolution, there was no such
approval on the Joint Resolution by former Supreme Court Associate Justice
Carpio-Morales, who was the incumbent Ombudsman at the time the Joint
Resolution was issued. Radaza posits that this fact prevented the
Sandiganbayan from acquiring jurisdiction over the offense charged under the
Amended Information and over his person as the accused thereunder. Hence,
his motion to quash should have been granted.

The Court finds no reason in law or in fact to agree with Radaza.

51 Id. at 141 citing Dycoco v. Court ofAppeals, 715 Phil. 550,563 (2013).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 201380

Rule 117 of the Rules of Court spells out the grounds to quash a criminal
complaint or information, Section 3(d) of which is the crux of this case:

SEC. 3. Grounds. - The accused may move to quash the complaint or

information on any of the following grounds:

(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged;

(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused;

(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do
so;

(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;

(f) That more than one offense is charged except. when a single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law;

(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;

(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal

excuse or justification; and

(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent.

(Emphasis supplied.)

This is read in conjunction with the principle laid down in the third
paragraph of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review.xx x

xxxx

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an

investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of
the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the
Ombudsman or his deputy. (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 4(g), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the

Ombudsman echoes the immediately-preceding provision with more
specificity:
· .. Decision 15 G.R. No. 201380

Rule II

PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES

xxxx

Section 4. Procedure - The preliminary investigation of cases falling under the

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall be conducted
in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, subject to
the following provisions:

xxxx

g) X XX

No information may be filed and no complaint may be dismissed without

the written authority or approval of the Ombudsman in cases falling
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan xx x (Emphasis supplied.)

Earlier jurisprudence 52 had viewed the lack of authority by the officer

filing the Information under paragraph (d) of Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules
of Court as a non-waivable ground additional to paragraphs (a), (b ), (g), and
(i) of the same provision. It was the prevailing principle that an Information
filed by an officer who had no authority to do so shall be considered
jurisdictionally infirm for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
and over the subject matter or the offense. The ratio underlying this principle
was that an Information filed without such proper authorization was a
defective Information, and a defective Infonnation can never be the basis of a
valid conviction.

However, this legal maxim set by jurisprudence has already been

rendered old and obsolete with the advent of Gomez v. People. 53 It was therein
held that a handling prosecutor's lack of prior written authority from the head
prosecutor in the filing of an Information does not affect a trial court's
acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the
accused. 54 Such handling prosecutor who filed an unauthorized Information
but without bad faith or criminal intent is considered as a de facto officer
coated with a color of authority to exercise acts that remain valid and
official. 55

If the unauthorized filing was done with malice, the erring officer may
be held criminally or administratively liable for usurpation of official

52 Gomez v. People, GR. No. 216824, November 10, 2020; citing Villa v. Ibanez, 88 Phil. 402 (1951); People
v. Garfin, 470 Phil. 211 (2004); Turingan v. Garfin, 549 Phil. 903 (2007); Tolentino v. Paqueo, Jr., 551
Phil. 355 (2007); Quisay v. People, 778 Phil. 481 (2016); and Maximo v. Villapando, Jr., 809 Phil. 843
(2017).
53 Id.
54 Id.
5s Id.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 201380

functions at most. 56 Intentional or not, this deficiency remains formal, non-

jurisdictional, and curable at any stage of the criminal proceedings. 57 As it
always is, jurisdiction springs from substantive law, whereas a government
officer's authority to sue is a matter of mere fonn and procedure. Purely
technical infirmities are never detenninative of a court's jurisdiction. In no
case shall it prevent the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the offense or
the person of the accused. 58

The same goes with a criminal prosecution that nonetheless proceeds in

the absence of a preliminary investigation- the accused's right thereto is not a
constitutionally-guaranteed right but one of mere statutory privilege. 59 Even if
there was no preliminary investigation, such fact neither affects the court's
jurisdiction over the case nor does it impair the validity or completeness of an
Information. As the lack of a preliminary investigation is not even one of the
listed grounds for quashal of an Information, it is more so that the lack or prior
written authority or approval on the part of the handling prosecutor is
inconsequential in terms of jurisdiction and efficacy of the Information filed
against the accused. 60

The Sandiganbayan acquired

jurisdiction over the offenses
charged and over the person of
Radaza as an accused.

A deeper probe into the case records shall only work against Radaza.

First, the factual issues raised by Radaza require analysis of evidence that
is already beyond the limited coverage of a preliminary investigation inquiry.

In a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutors do not decide

whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person
charged. 61 They merely determine whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. 62

The gist of Radaza's continuing objections to the Informations and the

preliminary investigations was that his mere signature on the POWE should
not make him criminally liable as a conspirator in the alleged violation of RA
3019. Such arguments already constitute as his full defenses against the
criminal accusations against him that cannot be entirely and fairly weighed in

56 Id.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 Id.
61 Maza v. Hon. Turla, 805 Phil. 736, 758 (2017) citing People v. Castillo, 607 Phil. 754, 767 (2009).
62 Id.
· Decision 17 G.R. No. 201380

a preliminary investigation proceeding. It cannot be expected that upon the

filing of an Information in court, the prosecutor would have already
considered all the evidence necessary to secure a conviction of the accused. 63
This is a matter of evidence that is within the province of a full-blown trial
and indeterminable in a preliminary investigation.

Next, the changes in the words and phrasings of the Sandiganbayan

issuances and of the reinvestigation findings pertained only to the participation
of the other accused. The allegations against Radaza and the acts imputed
upon him remained umnodified for him to decry that he had been deprived of
due process or of his right to preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman-
Visayas found occasion to mention this early on in its disputed Joint
Resolution, which the Court finds sound:

For emphasis, let it be highlighted that right from the very start, the
charge that respondents were made to answer was for Violation of Section
3(e), Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019), as
amended. The fact-finding investigation conducted by the PACPO-
Ombudsman (Visayas), resulted in the issuance of Final Evaluation Report
dated 23 March 2007. This Final Evaluation Report of PACPO, which served as
the complaint, was for the upgrading of the complaint to a criminal case for
Violation of Section 3(e), Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act
3019), as amended. Thus, the first preliminary investigation conducted by
this Office was already for Violation of Section 3(e), Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019), as amended for which
respondents have already been made to answer or which issues have
supposedly been met by them already. Additionally, while as a result of the
"reinvestigation", the Amended Information was filed for Violation of Section
3(e), Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019), and not for
Violation of Section 3(g), it is not that respondents were not given due process
or opportunity to answer anew the same charges (involving the same parties,
transactions, acts complained of/issues, subject matter and evidences). As it was
a reinvestigation of the entire case, all respondents, including the BAC-TWG
Members (Manggis, Bernido and Ojeda) were indeed required again to submit
their Counter-Affidavits, Supplemental Affidavits for those who have already
submitted their Counter-Affidavits, Comments and/or additional controverting
evidences. Moreover, all respondents were furnished with and have received the
copies of all the additional documents/papers received by this Office during the
reinvestigation. Hence, it is not that the Amended Information for Violation of
Section 3(e), Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019) was just
filed sans all respondents having been given the sufficient opportunity to refute
and/or answer the charge. Reiteratingly, the parties, transactions, subject
matter, acts complained of/issues, documents/papers for this (third)
preliminary investigation and the second (reinvestigation) preliminary
investigation are exactly the same. 64 (Emphasis supplied.)

Moreover, the Court finds Radaza to have already submitted his person
as an accused to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Multiple pleadings,

63
Id. at 759.
64
Rollo, pp. 529-530.
Decision 18 G.R. No. 201380

motions, and remedies had been signed, filed, and prayed for under his name
throughout the proceedings of this case. Radaza invoked the processes of the
Sandiganbayan in moving for a judicial re-detennination of probable cause. 65
He had even applied for bail before the anti-graft court and was granted
provisional liberty thereon. Settled is the rule that an accused is deemed to
have yielded himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking before it the
grant of affinnative reliefs. 66

Likewise, the legal repercussions of the conditional arraignment

bargained for by Radaza cannot be discounted.

Unlike regular trial courts, the Sandiganbayan sanctions conditional

arraignment of the accused. Section 2, Rule VIII of the 2018 Revised Internal
Rules of the Sandiganbayan so states:

Sec 2. Conditional Arraignment. - Where an accused seeks to travel

outside the Philippines prior to arraignment, the Sandiganbayan, in its
discretion, may arraign the accused under the following conditions:

(a) That if the information is not subsequently amended or re-filed,

the conditional arraignment shall be considered a regular arraignment and the
case may proceed even in the absence of the accused;

(b) That if the Information be subsequently amended or re-filed, the

accused shall be deemed to have waived the right against double jeopardy and
the accused shall be arraigned under the amended or new information;

(c) That the accused will not lose the right under the rules to
question in a motion to quash the amended or new information filed
subsequent to the conditional arraignment; and

(d) That in case the Information be subsequently quashed or

withdrawn, the arraignment shall be considered of no force and effect and/or
shall not be used as ground to invoke the right against double jeopardy;

The order issued at the arraignment shall state that the above conditions
were explained to the accused in unmistakable terms, and that the accused
clearly understood and expressly accepted the terms and conditions. (Emphasis
supplied.)

A person criminally charged before the Sandiganbayan may be permitted

to travel outside the Philippines, subject to certain conditions set by the above
provision. Paragraph (c) thereof is of particular relevance to the case at hand:
an accused conditionally arraigned under the first Information will not lose the
right to question in a motion to quash the amended or new Information filed
after the conditional arraignment.

65
See Davidv. Agbay, 756 Phil. 278,293 (2015).
66 Id.
Decision 19 G.R. No. 201380

A clarification of the grounds to quash an information that is amended

after the conditional arraignment under Section 2, Rule VIII of the 2018
Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan is now imperative.

Paragraph (c) thereof indeed secures the right to question in a motion to

quash the amended or new information filed subsequent to the conditional
arraignment, which may rest upon the grounds enumerated under Section 3,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. However, the accused shall now be proscribed
from assailing the amended or new information against him for lack of
jurisdiction over his person, as originally available to him under Paragraph
(c), Section 3, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. An accused who travels abroad
with the provisional conformity of the Sandiganbayan is considered to have
positively invoked and already validated the same judicial power that
permitted his travel outside the Philippines during the pendency of the
criminal proceedings. By the principle of estoppel, the accused's own
actuations countered and nullified any dispute on the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over the person of such accused.

Radaza prayed that he be allowed to travel to USA to visit his brother,

then terminally ill and confined in a hospital in Califomia. 67 On September 23,
2008, the Sandiganbayan granted his Urgent Motion for Permit to Travel and
he was arraigned under the original Information charging him with violation
of Section 3(g) of RA 3019. 68 As such, Radaza is deemed to have acquiesced
to the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over his person in the case before the anti-
graft court. He should not be permitted to assail the very authority that
indulged in his personal privileges that ordinarily are unavailable to an
accused such as himself.

At this point, Radaza is now deemed a proper subject under the

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as an accused. He had benefitted far too
much from the positive reliefs that he had sought from and granted by the
Sandiganbayan. Whether in civil or criminal actions, prayers for affirmative
reliefs constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party, as by doing so the latter is then deemed to have
voluntarily appeared and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. 69

More importantly, the accusations against Radaza, whether in the original

Information or in the Amended Information, both yield a prima facie case of
violation of RA 3019, effectively placing the subject offenses under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and rendering Radaza indictable under
Section 3(e) or 3(g).

Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019 state:

67 Rec;ords, Vol. III, pp. 228-230.

68 Id.at231-236.
69 Miranda v. Tuliao, 520 Phil. 907, 920 (2006).
Decision 20 G.R. No. 201380
, .

Section 3. Corrupt practices ofpublic officers. - In addition to acts or omissions

of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:

xxxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving
any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations
charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions;

xxxx

(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction

manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public
officer profited or will profit thereby.

The elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are:

(a) That the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,

judicial, or official functions, or a private individual acting in conspiracy with
such public officers;

(b) That he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or

inexcusable negligence; and

(c) That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the
government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or
preference in the discharge of his functions. 70

On the other hand, Section 3(g) of RA 3019 requires the concurrence of

the following requisites:

(1) that the accused is a public officer;

(2) that he or she entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the

government; and

(3) that such contract or transaction 1s grossly and manifestly

disadvantageous to the government. 71

70 People v. Naciongayo, G.R. No. 243897, June 8, 2020.

71 Gov. Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, 549 Phil. 783, 799 (2007).
.' . Decision 21 G.R. No. 201380

Jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the

allegations in the complaint or infonnation. 72 Correlatively, the law vests upon
the Sandiganbayan the power to hear and decide violations of RA 3019,
among other offenses, committed by a city mayor, among other public
officials specifically enumerated therein. 73

By the wordings of the assailed Informations, the Court finds all

elements for both offenses properly alleged by the prosecution against Radaza.
The Informations are hereafter laid out side-by-side for a clearer perspective:

Original Iriformation for Amended Information for

Section 3 (g): Section 3(e):

The undersigned The undersigned Deputy

Graft Investigation and Ombudsman for the Visayas
Prosecution Officers of the accuses x x x ARTURO 0.
Office of the Ombudsman- RADAZAx xx of the offense of
Visayas accuse x x x VIOLATION OF SECTION
ARTURO 0. RADAZA xx 3(e), R.A. 3019, AS
x of the offense of AMENDED, otherwise known
VIOLATION OF as THE ANTI-GRAFT AND
SECTION 3(g) OF CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT,
REPUBLIC ACT NO. committed as follows:
3019, AS AMENDED,
otherwise known as THE That on or about 6
ANTI-GRAFT AND February 2007 and for sometime
CORRUPT PRACTICES prior or subsequent thereto, at
ACT, committed as follows: the City of Cebu, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of
That in or about the this Honorable Court, above-
month of March 2007, and for named accused, x x x
sometime prior or subsequent ARTURO o. RADAZA, X X X
thereto, at the City of Cebu, public [officer], being the x xx
Philippines, and within the City Mayor x x x of Lapu-Lapu
jurisdiction of this Honorable City, Province of Cebu, in such
Court, x x x accused ARTURO capacity and committing the
0. RADAZA, x x x public offense in relation to office,
officers, being then the City conniving and confederating
Mayor, xx x and as such [officer together and mutually helping
is] tasked to prepare the Program with each other, and with
of Works and Detailed Estimates ISABELO A. BRAZA, a
for infrastructure projects x x x in private individual, in his
such capacity and committing the capacity as President and
offense in relation to office, Chairman of the Board,
conniving and confederating FABMIK Construction and
together and mutually helping Equipment Supply Co., Inc.,
each other and with accused with deliberate intent,
ISABELO A. BRAZA, a manifest partiality or evident
private individual, being the bad faith, did then and there
President and Chairman of the willfully, unlawfully and

72
Cabral v. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019.
73
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, as amended by REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10660, Section 4(a)(l)(b).
Decision 22 G.R. No. 201380

Board of FABMIK Constrnction criminally cause the award of

and Equipment Supply Co., Inc., Contract ID No. 06HO0050 for
with deliberate intent, and with the SUPPLY AND
intent of gain and to defraud, INSTALLATION OF STREET
did then and there willfully, LIGHTING FACILITIES
unlawfully and feloniously, on (consisting of 1.0 LOT or 139
behalf of the Republic of the units of Single Arm Poles and 60
Philippines, prepare and units of Double Arm Poles, or a
approve the Program of Works total of 199 units), MANDAUE-
and Detailed Estimates for the MACTAN BRIDGE 1 TO
supply and installation of street PUNTA ENGANO SECTION,
lighting facilities consisting of LAPU-LAPU CITY, x x x for
one hundred thirty-nine (139) EIGHTY THREE MILLION
sets of 7M-single-arm street light NINE HUNDRED THIRTY
poles, costing about Seventy-Two FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P83,935,000.00), by preparing
(P72,500.00), Philippine the Program of Works and
Currency, per set; and sixty (60) Estimates, Approved Budget
sets of 9M-double-arm street for the Contract [ABC] and
light poles costing about Eighty- other related documents, and
Five Thousand Five Hundred conducting the procurement
Pesos (P85,500.00), Philippine process, despite absence of
Currency, per set; along the legal requirements for a valid
Mandaue-Mactan Bridge I to procurement process under
Punta Engafio Section, Lapu- Republic Act 9184, otherwise
Lapu City (Contract ID No. known as Government
06HO0050), conduct the Procurement Reform Act, aside
bidding, recommend the award from awarding and
of the contract to FABMIK implementing the project at an
Construction and Equipment excessive price of
Supply Co., Inc., and P83,935,000.00 which is in
afterwards enter into the excess by EIGHTEEN
corresponding contract with MILLION FORTY FIVE
accused ISABELO A. BRAZA THOUSAND EIGHT
which contract or transaction HIUNDRED NINETY PESOS
was manifestly and grossly [P18,045,890.00] x x x, or in
disadvantageous to the excess by THIRTEEN
Republic of the Philippines, as MILLION NINETY TWO
the said cost of P72,500.00 and THOUSAND NINETY PESOS
P85,500.00 exceeded the AND 85/100 (Pl3,092,090.85) x
prevailing price of only about Six x x, as against the Ombudsman
Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00), [0MB] computation of SIXTY
Philippine Currency, per set of FIVE MILLION EIGHT
single-arm assembly, and Seven HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE
Thousand Five Hundred Pesos THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
(P7,500.00), Philippine Currency, NINE PESOS AND 99/100
per set of double arm assembly, [P65,889,109.99], which in
to the damage and prejudice of either computation is excessive
the government. as it is beyond the ten percent
[l 0%] allowable price variance
CONTRARY TO LAW. 74 under COA Circular No. 85-
55A, thereby giving

74
Rollo,Vol. 1, pp. 145-148.
, ,.pecision 23 G.R. No. 201380

unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference to the
contractor, FABMIK
Construction and Equipment
Supply Company, Inc. to the
damage and prejudice of the
government.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 75

Radaza, being then the City Mayor of Lapu-Lapu City, had likewise
never disputed the fact that he affixed his signature on the POWE relative to
the street lighting project. He denied, though, that his signature had implicated
him for any criminal offense, or that he colluded with the other participants in
the irregularities discovered. The prosecution, of course, states otherwise. The
issues having been joined, the imperative now is for the prosecution to present
proof beyond reasonable doubt against Radaza, and the latter as the accused is
given the opportunity, although not an obligation, to debunk the evidence
against him. Such elaborate presentation of evidence has no place in a
preliminary investigation.

Again, jurisprudence has declared that matters that are evidentiary in

nature are better threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits. In the same
vein, there is no contest that the Infonnations that Radaza have labored for so
much to quash have adequately charged the offenses charged thereunder.
Jurisdiction over the offenses of violation of RA 3019, whether under Section
3(e) or 3(g), has already attached to the Sandiganbayan.

All said, Radaza may be indicted therefor. His argmnents are too trivial to
merit the quashal of the Information, and too vacuous to justify the delay in
the prosecution of this criminal case. This has fermented in the preliminary
investigation stage for thirteen long years. While unnecessary, this Court
indulged in a wordy discourse on the baselessness of Radaza's prolonged saga
against the Informations and Resolutions filed by the Ombudsman, all for the
purpose of finally ending the same. The Sandiganbayan is hereafter enjoined
to fully dispose of the case with dispatch and without tolerance for further
needless delays.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The

November 2, 2011 and February 21, 2012 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan
in SB-08-CRM-0275 denying Arturo 0. Radaza's Opposition and Motion to
Quash Amended Information dated September 22, 2011 are AFFIRMED. The
anti-graft court is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with the arraignment of
Arturo 0. Radaza.

75
Id. at 388-390.
 Decision 24 G.R. No. 201380 •, t

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

ESTELA M~~BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

-- . acz;t ~
HENRI SAMUELr.zGAEllA:N
Associate Justice Associate Justice

RICARD
Decision 25 G.R. No. 201380

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the c-ase was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

AiQt,uJ
ESTELA M. ':ri)RLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.