FELICISIMO F. LAZARTE, JR., Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
The National Housing Authority (NHA) awarded a contract for the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City to A.C. Cruz Construction. The project was funded by a World Bank loan. The contractor commenced work in August 1990. In 1991, Project Engineer Candido M. Fajutag, Jr. discovered deficiencies and irregularities, including that certain excavation and road filling works billed under a Variation/Extra Work Order were not actually undertaken, lacked supporting documents, and involved overestimated volumes. An Inventory and Acceptance Committee (IAC), chaired by petitioner Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr., determined the contractor’s accomplishment. The contract was later rescinded, and the remaining work was awarded to Triad Construction. Triad paid A.C. Cruz Construction for accomplishments after the NHA inventory. A Commission on Audit (COA) special audit later revealed ghost activities and substandard work, finding that A.C. Cruz Construction had been overpaid by ₱232,628.35. Petitioner, as manager of the Regional Projects Department and Chairman of the IAC, and other NHA officials were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for causing the payment of public funds for non-existent works, giving unwarranted benefits to the contractor. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the Information, which the Sandiganbayan denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the Information charging him with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Information validly charged an offense under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, as it alleged that the accused public officers, with deliberate intent, manifest partiality, and evident bad faith, caused the payment of public funds for non-existent works, giving unwarranted benefits to the contractor to the prejudice of the government. The allegations in the Information, which must be hypothetically admitted in a motion to quash, sufficiently constituted the elements of the offense. Petitioner’s arguments, such as his claim that the IAC relied on field reports and that he signed the inventory report despite not attending the inspection, were matters of defense to be threshed out during trial. The Court also found that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case and that the Information was not defective for allegedly failing to specify the individual participation of each accused, as the charge was for a conspiracy.
