G.R. Nos. 205904-06. October 17, 2018
GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA, PETITIONER, V. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Gwendolyn F. Garcia, then Governor of Cebu, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in relation to the Province of Cebu’s purchase of the Balili Estate. The criminal cases stemmed from the alleged grossly disadvantageous purchase of eleven parcels of land, a significant portion of which was later discovered to be submerged in water or classified as mangrove area, for the price of P100 million. The prosecution alleged that Garcia, in conspiracy with others, caused undue injury to the government by approving the purchase despite irregularities, including discrepancies between the authorized ten parcels and the purchased eleven parcels, payments made without proper appropriation, and the inflated price for property largely unusable for the intended industrial port development.
Garcia filed a motion to quash the informations, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense. The Sandiganbayan denied her motion. Subsequently, she filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan’s denial and the issuance of Hold Departure Orders against her. She argued that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause, as the allegations failed to establish the elements of the crime, particularly the element of “evident bad faith” or “gross inexcusable negligence.”

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Garcia’s motion to quash the informations and in finding probable cause to issue Hold Departure Orders.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s actions. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A writ of certiorari is only available when a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that a motion to quash hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged in the information. The informations sufficiently alleged all the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 : that the accused is a public officer, that the act was done in the discharge of official functions, and that said act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury to the government.
The Court found that the allegations—including the purchase of property with a substantial underwater portion at a premium price, the procedural irregularities in the authorization and payment, and the resultant prejudice to the province—adequately pleaded a case for the court to determine whether the elements of the crime are proven beyond reasonable doubt during trial. The determination of whether “evident bad faith” or “gross inexcusable negligence” exists is a matter of evidence best threshed out in a full-blown trial, not at the preliminary stage of a motion to quash. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction in denying the motion and in issuing the Hold Departure Orders to ensure the accused’s presence during trial.