The Sandiganbayan has dismissed three graft cases against former Cebu City mayor Michael Rama and five members of the local Bids and Awards Committee. The anti-graft court ruled that the state’s charges were legally insufficient because they failed to specify the exact actions the officials took to commit an offense.
The ruling by the court’s Seventh Division clears Rama alongside committee members Leizl Calamba, Lyndon Bernardo Basan, Conrado Ordesta III, Janeses Ponce and Dominic Dino. The charges were tied to the 2021 awarding of multi-million-peso solid waste management contracts to three private firms: Jomara Konstruckt Corp., ACM Hauling Services and ARN Central Waste Management Inc. State prosecutors had argued that these contracts caused undue injury to the government and gave unwarranted benefits to the private contractors.
The case was dropped after the court granted the defense’s “motions to quash” — a legal request to dismiss charges before a trial begins because the formal accusation document, known as the “criminal information,” is defective. In this case, the Sandiganbayan found that the prosecution relied too heavily on listing broken administrative procurement rules rather than proving criminal intent. The court emphasized that simply violating government procurement procedures does not automatically translate to a criminal violation of Republic Act (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Dispute Over Procurement Rules
During the proceedings, the defense successfully argued that procurement guidelines are meant to govern administrative processes, not serve as penal laws that define criminal offenses. They maintained that the prosecution’s allegations were vague legal conclusions rather than specific factual accusations against each individual.
Conversely, the prosecution countered that it did not need to present detailed evidentiary matters at the initial charging stage. They maintained that the broken procurement rules simply demonstrated the mode by which the alleged graft was carried out, insisting they had presented enough initial evidence of financial injury to the government and unfair benefits to the contractors.
Constitutional Rights and the Court’s Rationale
The Sandiganbayan ultimately rejected the prosecution’s stance, ruling that the charges failed to meet the constitutional requirement of clearly informing the accused of the nature and cause of the crimes they allegedly committed. The court noted that any ambiguity in a criminal charge must favor the accused, in line with the constitutional presumption of innocence.
In the resolution promulgated by Associate Justice Pahimna, the court observed: “While the amended Informations mentioned in the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the prosecution failed to explicitly indicate the acts and facts how the accused committed the offenses charged.”
The court added that because the prosecution listed extensive regulatory provisions without “specifically depicting even a glimpse of the acts or omissions allegedly committed by the accused that give rise to the perceived violation of said sufficient factual grounds to support the provision, the court finds no contention of the prosecution.”
By applying Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the dismissal of flawed charges even after the prosecution has been given a chance to amend them, the Sandiganbayan fully dropped all three criminal cases.
The ruling effectively concludes the matter for Rama and the committee members, rendering all other pending motions related to the cases moot.
