Fernando v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Marcelo Fernando, then Undersecretary of Finance, and Salvador Mison, then Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019, as amended). The charge stemmed from allegations that they gave unwarranted benefits to J.F. Tabajonda Construction by splitting a contract exceeding P5,000,000.00 into eight smaller contracts for the repair and renovation of the Bureau of Customs Building. This alleged splitting of the contract was purportedly done to avoid public bidding and favor J.F. Tabajonda Construction, which was awarded four of the eight contracts. Procedural History: A complaint was filed by a former Bureau of Customs employee, Leonardo Jose, who had been separated from service. The Office of the Special Prosecutor initially recommended prosecution, but this was later reconsidered and recommended for dismissal by another prosecutor. However, the Ombudsman disapproved this recommendation and ordered the filing of an information against the petitioners and others with the Sandiganbayan. The petitioners moved for reconsideration and deferment of arraignment, which the Sandiganbayan initially referred back to the Ombudsman for further investigation. After a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman again ordered the filing of the information. The petitioners' subsequent motion to defer arraignment was denied by the Sandiganbayan, leading to the present consolidated petitions for certiorari. The Petition: These consolidated petitions for certiorari seek to annul the Sandiganbayan's orders denying the petitioners' motion to defer arraignment and setting their arraignment. The petitioners argue that there is no prima facie case against them, asserting that the necessary approvals for the contracts were obtained in accordance with Executive Order No. 301, and that the splitting of the contract was not done with manifest partiality or evident bad faith. They contend that the Commission on Audit certified the transactions as post-audited with no grounds for disallowance, and that J.F. Tabajonda Construction was awarded contracts based on the lowest bids for specific portions of the project, negating any claim of unwarranted benefits or partiality. The Solicitor General, in his comment, agreed that there was no prima facie case against the petitioners.
Issue(s)
Whether there was sufficient probable cause to sustain the charges of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 against petitioners Fernando and Mison. Whether the splitting of the contract and awarding of four contracts to J.F. Tabajonda Construction constituted manifest partiality, unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. Whether the approval process for the contracts complied with the requirements of Executive Order No. 301 and other relevant regulations. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to defer arraignment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petitions for certiorari, annulled the Sandiganbayan's orders, and ordered the petitioners dropped from the information in Criminal Case No. 14461 for lack of probable cause. The Court found no prima facie case against petitioners Fernando and Mison.
Ratio Decidendi
On the existence of probable cause and the alleged violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019: The Court found no substantial basis to sustain the prosecution. The records showed that Commissioner Mison sought appropriate authority from the Office of the President and the Department of Finance, which was granted. The approval process, including the March 4, 1988 approval by the Acting Secretary of Finance, two Undersecretaries, and Fernando's own signature, constituted the required authorization under Executive Order No. 301. The Court noted that the Commission on Audit certified that all transactions were post-audited and found no grounds for suspension or disallowance of disbursements, indicating no undue injury to the government. Furthermore, Mison awarded four contracts to other contractors who submitted lower bids for specific projects, which negates the claim of manifest partiality. None of the other contractors protested any partiality. The determination by the Customs Committee on Bidding was that J.F. Tabajonda Construction offered the lowest bid price, and the procedures adopted were regular and fair. The Court emphasized that for a benefit to be unwarranted, it must be unjustified and devoid of consideration, which was not shown here. On the alleged splitting of contracts to avoid public bidding and the alleged manifest partiality and unwarranted benefits: The Court found no evidence that the breaking up of the construction costs was a deliberate attempt to avoid public bidding. The main thrust of the prosecution was this alleged scheme, but the Court found it unsubstantiated. The Court also noted the absence of charges for over-pricing, poor construction, kickbacks, or any similar anomalies. The Court reiterated that proper authority for contracts up to P9,999,999.00 was given, and whether the contract was awarded as a single large award or broken into smaller ones was of no moment. The Court found no evidence of manifest partiality. Commissioner Mison awarded contracts to other bidders who offered lower prices for specific projects, which contradicts the notion of favoritism. The fact that J.F. Tabajonda Construction offered the lowest bid for the four contracts awarded to it further supported the finding of regularity. The Court also noted that there was no finding by the Ombudsman of any special relationship between Fernando and J.F. Tabajonda Construction. The complainant, being a dismissed employee, was deemed to have a motive driven by anger over his dismissal, rather than a genuine concern for public service. On the role of Undersecretary Fernando and the approval process: The Court found no evidence of evident bad faith or gross negligence on the part of Fernando. His approval of the contracts was subject to compliance with Executive Order No. 301 and usual accounting and auditing requirements. The Court also noted that the Ombudsman found no previous dealings or special relationship between Fernando and J.F. Tabajonda Construction. His efficiency in approving contracts was seen as a commendation rather than a condemnation. On the Ombudsman's findings, the Sandiganbayan's orders, and the motion to defer arraignment: The Court acknowledged its policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman's powers but stated that it would intervene in rare cases of misapprehension of facts or lack of probable cause. The Court found that the Ombudsman's findings were not supported by the records and that there was a misapprehension of facts, particularly regarding the approval process and the "curative" nature of the March 4, 1988 approval. The Court cited Salonga v. Cruz Paño for the principle that preliminary investigations are meant to protect the innocent from hasty and oppressive prosecution, and that courts should dismiss charges when evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case. The Solicitor General also agreed that there was no prima facie case.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court may intervene in the Ombudsman's exercise of his prosecutorial powers when there is a misapprehension of facts or lack of probable cause, particularly when the evidence clearly shows no prima facie case against the accused, thereby preventing hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution.