The Sandiganbayan's Seventh Division has dismissed three graft cases against former Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama and members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) after ruling that the prosecution's case was weak and lacked concrete details.
In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Pahimna, the anti-graft court granted the motions to quash filed by the accused in Criminal Case Nos. SB-25-CRM-0033 to 0035, all related to alleged violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Acquitted along with Rama were BAC members Leizl Calamba, Lyndon Bernardo Basan, Conrado Ordesta III, Janeses Ponce, and Dominic Dino.
The cases stemmed from the alleged awarding of multi-million peso contracts for solid waste management in 2021 to three private companies: Jomara Konstruckt Corporation, ACM Hauling Services, and ARN Central Waste Management Inc. Prosecutors claimed that these awards caused great damage to the government and gave undue advantage to private entities.
However, the court found that the prosecution repeatedly failed to specify the “ultimate facts” showing how the accused committed the alleged irregularities. Instead, the prosecution merely cited procurement rules under the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9184 and directives from the Government Procurement Policy Board.
The court warned that simply alleging violations of procurement procedures does not automatically constitute graft under Section 3(e) of RA 3019. It noted that the amended informations were largely composed of legal conclusions and failed to detail the specific overt acts attributable to each accused.
In approving the motions, the Sandiganbayan applied Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which allows the dismissal of criminal informations if the facts alleged do not constitute a crime, even if the prosecution was given an opportunity to amend them.
The accused individually presented their motions to quash, arguing that the cited procurement provisions are not penal laws and cannot stand alone to support a criminal charge. They claimed the allegations were vague and amounted to legal conclusions rather than factual accusations, and that the informations failed to identify specific acts done by each accused.
