Tan v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, as members of the Cebu Port Authority Bids and Awards Committee (CPA-BAC), were charged with violation of Section 65(a)(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act). The charge stemmed from the alleged willful, unlawful, and criminal delay without justifiable cause in the opening of bids for janitorial/support services for CY 2011. The scheduled opening on May 18, 2011, was postponed to June 9, 2011, allegedly due to queries from media and port stakeholders, which the Information stated were not justifiable grounds for postponement under the law. Procedural History: The Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense and that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction. They contended that their positions were below Salary Grade 27, placing their case under the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) jurisdiction, and that the charge was not for offenses enumerated in Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606. The Sandiganbayan denied their Motion to Quash. Petitioners also argued that R.A. No. 10660, which amended P.D. No. 1606, divested the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction if no damage to government or bribery was alleged, or if such damage/bribery did not exceed PHP1,000,000.00. The Sandiganbayan denied their subsequent Motion for Reconsideration and Supplement. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions denying their Motion to Quash, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the Motion to Quash the Information against petitioners; and whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case, considering the positions held by the petitioners and the nature of the offense charged. Whether the facts alleged in the Information constitute a violation of Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184; and whether the delay was due to justifiable cause, constituting a valid defense.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated February 28, 2017, and July 17, 2017, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's Jurisdiction and Applicability of R.A. No. 10660: The Court reiterated that the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is defined by Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended. It clarified that Section 4(a)(1)(g) explicitly includes 'managers of government-owned or controlled corporations' within its original jurisdiction, regardless of their salary grade. Since the petitioners were managers of the Cebu Port Authority (CPA), a GOCC, the Sandiganbayan correctly asserted jurisdiction over them. The Court further explained that Section 4(b) grants the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over 'other offenses or felonies' committed by public officials enumerated in Section 4(a) 'in relation to their office.' The charge of violating R.A. No. 9184 was committed in relation to the petitioners' official positions and duties as members of the CPA-BAC, thus falling under Section 4(b). The Court found petitioners' argument regarding the lack of allegation of damage to government or bribery to be without merit, emphasizing that amendments introduced by R.A. No. 10660 apply only to offenses committed after its effectivity (May 5, 2015). Since the offense was allegedly committed on May 18, 2011, the provisions of the amendment requiring allegations of damage or bribery were not applicable. On Whether the Information Constitutes an Offense and Justifiable Cause: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling that the facts alleged in the Information sufficiently constitute the offense of violating Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184. The Information clearly stated that the petitioners, as public officers and members of the CPA-BAC, 'willfully, unlawfully, and criminally delay without justifiable cause' the opening of bids by postponing it beyond the prescribed period. The alleged reason for postponement was specified as not being a justifiable cause under the law. The Court held that the test for sufficiency of an information is whether the alleged facts, if hypothetically admitted, establish the essential elements of the crime. The petitioners' contention that the delay was caused by the directive of Engr. Dennis R. Villamor, the CPA General Manager, and that this constituted a justifiable cause, was deemed a matter of defense to be proven during trial.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over managers of Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) regardless of their salary grade, as their positions are enumerated under Section 4(a)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended. Furthermore, violations of the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184) committed in relation to their office fall under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended. The Sandiganbayan commits no grave abuse of discretion in denying a motion to quash if the allegations in the Information sufficiently constitute the offense charged and the court has jurisdiction over the case.