Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 125498
February 18, 1999
Article 3
FACTS:
Petitioners Mayor Conrado Rodrigo and Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator,
Reynaldo Mejica of San Nicolas, Pangasinan, while Alejandro Facundo is the former Municipal
Treasurer. Represented by Mayor Rodrigo, the Municipality of San Nicolas entered into an
agreement with Philwood Construction represented by Larry Lu, for the electrification of Brgy.
Caboloan, San Nicolas for P486,386.18, on June 15, 1992. Eventually Mejica prepared an
Accomplishment Report stating that the project was 97.5% accomplished, which was supposedly
approved by mayor Rodrigo and confirmed by Larry Lu. P452,825.53 was then paid by Facundo to
Philwood.
On August 14, 1993, petitioners received a Notice of Disallowance from the Provincial Auditor
of Pangasinan who found that as per COA evaluation of the project, only 60.0171% of the project
(P291,915.07) was actually accomplished. He thus disallowed the amount of P160,910.46.
Petitioners requested the to lift the notice of disallowance and for a re-inspection, attaching a
Certificate of Acceptance and Completion. The Provincial Auditor did not act on their requests and
eventually filed a criminal complaint for estafa before the Ombudsman against the petitioners. Acting
Ombudsman Villa approved the filing of an information against petitioners for violation of RA 3019
before the Sandiganbayan, so the petitioners filed a motion for reinvestigation. The Office of the
Special Prosecutor issued a memorandum recommending that the charges against petitioners be
maintained which the Ombudsman approved. Petitioners thereafter filed before the Sandiganbayan a
motion to quash the information alleging that (1) the facts alleged in the information did not
constitute an offense, and (2) the same information charged more than one offense. They faulted the
Provincial Auditor for instituting the complaint against them when their opposition to the notice of
disallowance is still pending. This was denied and as the prosecution moved to suspend petitioners
pendent lite, they opposed it by alleging that the Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction over them which
was again denied.
ISSUE(S):
1. Whether petitioners right to due process was violated by the filing of the complaint against
them by the Provincial Auditor.
2. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in filing the information
against petitioners.
3. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over them.
HELD:
1. No.
Petitioners primarily oppose the institution by the Provincial Auditor of the complaint despite the
pendency of their opposition to the notice of disallowance, violating their right to due process. Based
on Section 44.6.4 of the State Audit Manual, it shall be the responsibility of the auditor to exercise
1 | Pre p a re d b y: J o -A n n e C o l o q u i o
2 | Pre p a re d b y: J o -A n n e C o l o q u i o