G.R. No. 130191 April 27, 1998
RODRIGO R. DUTERTE and BENJAMIN C. DE GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.

FACTS

In 1990, the Davao City government launched the Davao City Local Automation Project. A Computerization Program Committee, chaired by petitioner Benjamin C. de Guzman (City Administrator) and with petitioner Rodrigo R. Duterte (City Mayor) as the authorized signatory, recommended the acquisition of Goldstar computers from Systems Plus, Inc. (SPI). The City Council passed resolutions and ordinances approving the contract and appropriating funds. On November 8, 1990, a downpayment was released to SPI. On November 27, 1990, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao received an anonymous letter-complaint. In February 1991, a civil case was filed in the RTC seeking the nullity of the contract. On April 8, 1991, the City Council authorized the mutual cancellation of the contract, which was rescinded on May 6, 1991, and the downpayment was refunded. A Commission on Audit (COA) Special Audit Report dated May 31, 1991, later found violations in the procurement. On August 1, 1991, the Anti-Graft League filed a complaint with the Ombudsman. On November 12, 1991, the Ombudsman directed petitioners to file their comments. Petitioners submitted a manifestation on February 18, 1992. Four years later, on February 22, 1996, petitioners received a Memorandum from a Special Prosecution Officer recommending the filing of an information for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. An information was filed before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash, arguing denial of due process and the right to a speedy disposition of the case due to the inordinate delay. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ Motion to Quash, specifically on the grounds of denial of the right to a preliminary investigation, denial of the right to a speedy disposition of the case, and lack of basis for the criminal charge.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and dismissed the criminal case.
1. On the right to a preliminary investigation: The Court held that the right is substantive, and its denial constitutes a deprivation of due process. The Ombudsman’s procedure failed to comply with its own rules (A.O. No. 07). Petitioners were never furnished copies of the affidavits of the COA Special Audit Team, which formed the basis for the recommendation to file charges, nor were they given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting documents. The directive for them to comment on the civil case and the audit report was not a substitute for a proper preliminary investigation where they could confront the evidence against them.
2. On the right to a speedy disposition of the case: The Court found an inordinate delay of four years (from February 1992 when petitioners submitted their manifestation to February 1996 when they received the recommendation for filing of the information) that was unjustified and violated petitioners’ constitutional right. The delay was not attributable to petitioners’ motions for extension but to the inaction of the Ombudsman. The case did not involve complicated issues, especially since the contract had been mutually cancelled long before.
3. On the merit of the charge: The Court found no basis to charge petitioners under Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. One essential element of the offense is that the public officer entered into a contract on behalf of the government. The computerization contract was mutually rescinded on May 6, 1991, before the COA audit report was issued and before the Anti-Graft League complaint was filed. Thus, by the time the complaint was instituted, the contract was already non-existent.
The temporary restraining order was made permanent.