G.R. No. 234694 , November 26, 2024
MARIO GERALDO TAN, OSCAR JINGAPO LOPEZ, GLENN BIANCINGO CASTILLO, PERLITA GEMPEROA JUMAPAO, AND SOFRONIO TILLOR MAGDADARO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case stemmed from an Information dated July 4, 2016 charging petitioners, as members of the Cebu Port Authority Bids and Awards Committee (CPA-BAC), with violation of Section 65(a)(2) of Republic Act No. 9184 (The Government Procurement Reform Act). The Information alleged that on or about May 18, 2011, in Cebu City, petitioners, taking advantage of their official positions, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally delayed without justifiable cause the opening of bids for the procurement of Janitorial/Support Services for Calendar Year 2011 of the Cebu Port Authority beyond the prescribed period of action. The delay was effected by postponing the scheduled opening of bids from May 18, 2011 to June 9, 2011, allegedly due merely to queries from media and port stakeholders, which under law may be raised only by prospective bidders and before the deadline for submission of bids.
The controversy arose from the bidding process for the said procurement. The Invitation to Bid was published on April 27, 2011, setting the submission of bids and eligibility requirements on or before May 18, 2011. On May 18, 2011, CPA Commissioner Tomas Alburo Riveral requested the CPA General Manager, Dennis R. Villamor, to postpone the bidding process due to queries from media and port stakeholders. Villamor approved the request and transmitted it to the CPA-BAC with a marginal note “Approved as requested.” Consequently, the CPA-BAC informed the bidders present that the opening of bids was reset, and a Supplemental Bid Bulletin was later posted rescheduling it to June 9, 2011.
After a complaint was filed, the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause and filed the Information before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the facts alleged in the Information do not constitute an offense. The Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated February 28, 2017, granted the Motion to Quash as to Commissioner Riveral but denied it as to petitioners, ruling that trial was necessary to settle the factual circumstances. Petitioners filed an Urgent Partial Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplement, arguing that pursuant to R.A. No. 10660, the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over them as they occupied positions below Salary Grade 27, and that the Information did not allege damage or bribery exceeding PHP1,000,000.00, thus jurisdiction should lie with the Regional Trial Court. The Sandiganbayan denied their motions in a Resolution dated July 17, 2017. Hence, petitioners filed the instant Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the quashal of the Information against petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Petition lacks merit. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The Court held that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case. The applicable law for determining jurisdiction is Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249 , which was in effect at the time of the alleged offense in 2011. Under this law, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Republic Act No. 1379 , among others, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying positions classified as Grade “27” and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 ( Republic Act No. 6758 ).
The Court found that petitioners, as managers and department heads of the Cebu Port Authority (CPA), a government-owned or -controlled corporation (GOCC) without original charter created under Republic Act No. 7621 , are considered public officers occupying positions classified as Salary Grade 27 or higher. This classification is based on the CPA’s internal Compensation and Position Classification Plan approved by the Department of Budget and Management, which placed these managerial positions at Salary Grade 27. The Court cited jurisprudence, including People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante, which established that for GOCCs without original charters, the benchmark for determining Sandiganbayan jurisdiction is the corporation’s own compensation and position classification system, and officials holding positions equivalent to Salary Grade 27 or higher under that system fall within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.
The Court further ruled that the Sandiganbayan correctly denied the Motion to Quash. A motion to quash based on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense hypothetically admits the truth of the facts in the information. The Information sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense under Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184 : (1) petitioners were public officers and members of the CPA-BAC; (2) they took advantage of their official positions; (3) they willfully, unlawfully, and criminally delayed without justifiable cause the opening of bids beyond the prescribed period; and (4) the postponement was due merely to alleged queries from media and stakeholders, which are not valid justifications under the law. Whether the delay was justified or not is a matter of defense best determined in a full-blown trial. The Sandiganbayan acted within its discretion in finding that a trial was necessary to ascertain the factual circumstances surrounding the postponement.
Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the Petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions dated February 28, 2017 and July 17, 2017.