Sandiganbayan junks graft cases vs Cebu City officials

CEBU, Philippines – The anti-graft court Sandiganbayan has dismissed graft cases filed by the Office of the Ombudsman against five members of Cebu City’s Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) for Goods and Services stemming from waste management contracts.

The case is based on the questionable awarding of contracts to Jomara Konstruckt Corporation, ACM Hauling Services, and ARN Central Waste Management Incorporated for the collection and disposal of 1,886 tons of waste, hauling of 3,597 tons of waste, and tipping fees for 50,000 tons of waste, respectively.

“Considering the extensive and comprehensive provisions allegedly violated by the accused as cited in the amended Informations, without specifically depicting even a glimpse of the acts or omissions allegedly committed by the accused, …the court finds no sufficient factual grounds to support the contention of the prosecution,” the Sandiganbayan 7th Division said in its ruling.

The Office of the Ombudsman, acting on a complaint filed by a certain Jundel Bontuyan in August 2023, filed graft charges against then-BAC members Leizl Jacobe Calamba, Lyndon Bernardo Jao Basan, Conrado Acha Ordestra III, Janeses Bordario Ponce, and Dominic Amigable Diño; and Cebu City Mayor Mike Rama for allegedly violating procurement laws and providing an unfair advantage to the firms.

The contracts were awarded in December 2021, in the aftermath of Typhoon Odette. 

In a 14-page resolution, Associate Justice Lorifel Lacap Pahimna granted the accused’s individual motions to quash information, which Associate Justices Georgina Hidalgo and Hans Chester Nocom concurred.

“The Informations did not include the actual recital of facts allegedly committed by the accused and did not describe it with particularity which would apprise the accused with reasonable certainty of the offenses charged,” the court said.

Former Cebu City mayor Michael Rama was not covered by the ruling on the Motions to Quash.

Failed to rectify

On January 27, 2026, the court ordered the prosecutors to amend the three informations it filed on July 21, 2025. The amendments to the information were filed on March 23, 2026.

In the original information, prosecutors accused the respondents of not complying with the procedures prescribed in Annex H of the 2016 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of Republic Act No. 9148, as amended by Government Procurement Policy Board (GPBB) Resolution No. 03-2020, to the damage and prejudice of the government.”

This was amended to “in violation of the 2016 RIRR of Republic Act No. 9184, as amended by GPBB Resolution No. 03-2020, particularly Annex H, Title V (D), Section 2(a) and 2(b) sub-sections ii, iii, iv, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the afore-stated amount.”

The court noted that the prosecution “merely extracted” the specific provision of Annex H in the 2016 IRR of RA No. 9184, and that it did not add up the ultimate facts that are required by Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The rule states that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts of omissions complained of as constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date of the commission of the offense, and the place where the offense was committed.

“While the amended informations mentioned the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA No, 3019, the prosecution failed to explicitly indicate the acts and facts how the accused committed the offenses charged,” the court said.

The court added that the prosecutors failed to implicate in the informations the representatives of the firms that were accused of gaining unwarranted advantage from the awarding of the contracts

“More so, despite the opportunity afforded to the prosecution to rectify the sufficiency of the subject informations, and still failed to do so, the court is constrained to quash the informations on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense,” the court said. – Rappler.com