G.R. No. 234694 - MARIO GERALDO TAN, OSCAR JINGAPO LOPEZ, GLENN BIANCINGO CASTILLO, PERLITA GEMPEROA JUMAPAO, AND SOFRONIO TILLOR MAGDADARO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the lnformation [15] dated July 4, 2016 was filed before the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0458, and was raffled to the Special Second Division. [16] Subsequently, Riveral and petitioners filed their respective Motions to Quash, [17] with the latter interposing an urgent request to change the venue of the hearing to Cebu City. In their Motion to Quash, Riveral contended that there as no delay because the postponement was done within the 45-day period allowed under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9184, and that he should not be held criminally liable because he merely requested for the postponement of the bidding process but it was Villamor who approved his request and ordered the CPA-BAC to postpone the opening of bids, [18] while petitioners argued that the facts alleged in the Information filed against them do not constitute an offense. [19] The prosecution opposed the Motions to Quash filed by Riveral and petitioners. [20] The Sandiganbayan Ruling In a Resolution [21] dated February 28, 2017, the Sandiganbayan: (a) granted Riveral's Motion, and accordingly, quashed the Information as against him; but (b) denied the Motion to Quash filed by petitioners. [22] In granting Riveral's Motion to Quash, the Sandiganbayan explained that Riveral merely requested Villamor to postpone the bidding process in general. According to the Sandiganbayan, it was Villamor, using his discretion, who approved the request of Riveral and transmitted the said approval to the CPA-BAC, who then postponed the opening of bids. The Sandiganbayan ruled that it was the action of the CPA-BAC that led to the postponement of the opening of bids, and since Villamor was not indicted, there is no reason to also indict Riveral. [23] In denying petitioners' Motion to Quash, the Sandiganbayan ratiocinated that the factual circumstances must first be settled before it can make a final determination of whether the postponement caused by the CPA-­BAC was justified. Thus, trial is necessary to prove the material dates of the bidding process, what transpired during the pre-bid conferences and during the submission of bids, and to determine the role and participation of the CPA's general manager. [24] Petitioners then filed an Urgent Partial Motion for Reconsideration [25] and Supplement to Accused's Motion for Partial Reconsideration with Urgent Prayer to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Lack of Cause of Action (Supplement with Urgent Prayer) [26] arguing that: (a) pursuant to R.A. No. 10660, [27] the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over petitioners as they occupy positions "below the salary grade 27 jurisdiction threshold" of said tribunal; and (b) the Information does not allege any damage to government or bribery, nor alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding PHP1,000,000.00. Thus, according to petitioners, the Regional Trial Court (RT