FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 232041. July 6, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE

SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION], JESUSA ABAJA
TERUEL, CATHERINE PORTIA PULMONES CORTEZA, ET AL. ,
respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated July 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232041 (People of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. The
Honorable Sandiganbayan [Special Third Division, Jesusa Abaja
Teruel, Catherine Portia Pulmones Corteza, et al., Respondents .) —
This Petition for Certiorari 1 under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court
assails both the Decision 2 dated 29 November 2016 and Resolution 3 dated
18 April 2017 of respondent Sandiganbayan in SB-08-CRM-0001, entitled
"People of the Philippines vs. Rudy C. Tesoro, et al. " The Sandiganbayan
acquitted private respondent Jesusa Ruby A. Teruel (Teruel) for the offense
proscribed under Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019.
We note at the outset that this case arose from the same facts as those
in G.R. No. 222257 4 entitled, Jesusa Ruby A. Teruel v. COA , where this Court,
sitting en banc, ordered the revocation of Notice of Disallowance No. 2008-
001-101 (03) issued by the Commission on Audit against the disbursement
of the mobilization fee to Embrocal Builders, Inc. (Embrocal). For
consistency, we quote the Resolution in relevant part:
On August 14, 2001, the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) Iloilo Field Office issued Office Order No. 51-01 to create the In-
House Building Committee/Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) for the
construction of the GSIS Iloilo Field Office (project), chaired by Angelo
C. Grio (Grio). To render professional advice, Engineer Ruperto C.
Gaite (Gaite) was employed as a consultant for the project.
On January 23, 2003, an invitation to bid for the construction of the
project was posted in several public places, namely, Iloilo City Hall;
Iloilo Provincial Capitol; Department of Education, Culture, and
Sports-La Paz, Iloilo; and TTK Corporate Tower (GSIS Iloilo Office
Building).
On February 19 and 24, and March 3, 2003, an Invitation to Prequalify
to Bid was published in the Philippine Star. Nine contractors applied
and submitted their qualification forms. On March 13, 2003, the BAC
conducted the Pre-Qualification Proceedings and held Pre-Bid
Conference on April 3 and 29, 2003, to discuss the terms of reference
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 for the conduct of the bidding. All the parties conformed to the terms
of reference. Accordingly, Bid Bulletin No. 1 dated April 29, 2003 was
issued with the following terms of reference:
1. Submission of [the] bids will be until 10:00 AM [of] 16 May
2003; x x x
6. PD [No.] 1594 (as amended) and RA [No.] 9184 shall apply
in this bidding unless otherwise stated;
xxx xxx xxx
8. Any bid higher than the approved budget, or 15% lower
than the [Approved Agency Estimate] AAE (to be posted on
the date of bidding) will be deemed non-responsive, and
will be rejected; and
9. The GSIS will make an award based on the most
advantageous bid received in favor of the GSIS but it does
not guarantee that an award will be made.
On September 1, 2003, eight (8) out of nine (9) contractors were pre-
qualified. On September 4, 2003, Bid Bulletin No. 2 was issued with
the following matters:
xxx xxx xxx
Approved Budget: P57,000,000.00
xxx xxx xxx
2. Submission of [the] bids will be until 2:00 PM [of] 19
September 2003 x x x;
xxx xxx xxx
7. PD [No.] 1594 and RA [No.] 9184 will apply to this bidding
unless otherwise stated; and
xxx xxx xxx
9. Any Bid higher than the Approved Budget or 10% lower
than the Approved Agency Estimate (AA) will be rejected.
Several days thereafter, on September 11, 2003, Bid Bulletin No. 3
was issued:
1. This Bid Bulletin together with the previous
bulletins (unless otherwise superseded) will form an
integral part of the Bid Documents;
2. If there are conflict between the bulletins, the latter
bulletin will prevail; [and]
3. RA [No.] 9184 and its implementing rules will apply
to this bidding.
On the opening of bids on September 19, 2003, upon the advice of
Gaite, the BAC set the contingency percentage of five percent (5%) of
the revised AAE of P59,849,966.92 and fixed a ten percent (10%)
lower/floor limit of P53,864,970.22 as per condition set in Bid Bulletin
No. 2. Accordingly, before the opening of the bids, the BAC informed
the bidders of the value of the lower limit.
Of the eight (8) pre-qualified bidders, only four (4) submitted bids,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 thus:

Name of Bidder Amount of

Bids

1. Embrocal Buildings, Inc. (Embrocal) P55,350,000.00

2. Henry S. Oaminal Construction, Inc. 51,307,146.30

(Oaminal)

3. F. Gurrea Construction, Inc. (Gurrea) 53,503,013.33

4. Nelson S. Lee Construction (Lee) 55,125,000.00

Of the four (4) bids, the BAC rejected outright the bids of Oaminal and
Gurrea because their bids were below the lower limit of the floor price
of P53,864,970.22.
Subsequently, on October 10, 2003, the BAC disqualified Lee for
incurring a negative slippage of fifteen percent (15%) in the
construction of the GSIS Cebu City Branch Office, leaving Embrocal as
the sole qualified bidder.
On November 4, 2003 the BAC issued Resolution No. 1, series of
2003, recommending to Senior Vice President (SVP) for Field
Operations Group, Rudy S. Tesoro (SVP Tesoro), the award of the
contract to Embrocal.
On even date, GSIS issued the Notice of Award in favor of Embrocal,
signed by Vice President Mateo E. Basa, Jr. (VP Basa Jr.) and SVP
Tesoro.
Also on the same day, to culminate the award of the bidding process,
GSIS, through SVP Tesoro and Embrocal, through its President,
Edgardo M. Brocal (President Brocal), entered into a Contract for the
Construction (Contract) of the GSIS Iloilo Office. Attached to the
Contract were other documents, including the Notice to Proceed.
xxx xxx xxx
To commence the execution of the project, Embrocal requested from
[Teruel] the release of the mobilization fee equivalent to the
stipulated thirty percent (30%) of the contract price. [Teruel] referred
the letter request with a notation to release the mobilization fee to
Embrocal. Thus, the Administrative Division and Finance Division
issued an undated unnumbered Disbursement Voucher for the
amount of P8,302,500.00, representing the mobilization fee, inclusive
of taxes. Accordingly, Land Bank Check No. [00000227008] dated
November 25, 2003, in the amount of P7,430,737.50, net of taxes,
was issued to Embrocal on November 27, 2003.
Meanwhile, in response to the BAC decision rejecting their bids,
Gurrea and Oaminal sent protest letters to the former for the
inconsistencies in its bid bulletins. Gurrea and Oaminal averred that
the BAC caused confusion as to which law or laws would apply to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 bidding process. Gurrea and Oaminal disputed the BAC's error in
rejecting their bids on the ground that their bids were lower than the
ten percent (10%) limit of the approved agency estimate, when their
bids were compliant with R.A. No. 9184, which did not provide for any
low ceiling. 5
xxx xxx xxx
Gurrea and Oaminal's protests eventually led to the conduct of an
investigation and the issuance of a report finding irregularities on the
conduct of the bidding. On the basis of this report, administrative and
criminal actions were instituted against SVP Tesoro, VP Basa, Teruel, and the
rest of the members of the BAC (collectively "accused"). 6
On 10 June 2004, an Affidavit-Complaint was filed before the Office of
the Ombudsman. 7 Accused were indicted for violation of Section 3 (e) of
R.A. No. 3019 and the case docketed as SB-08-CRM-0001. The
Sandiganbayan found probable cause to hold them for trial. Accordingly, an
Order of Arrest dated 19 June 2008 was issued. 8 Teruel and her co-accused,
save for SVP Tesoro, 9 voluntarily surrendered and posted respective cash
bonds and, upon arraignment, pleaded not guilty to the charge. 10
The prosecution claimed that by providing and applying the 10% lower
limit not allowed under R.A. No. 9184, accused caused the disqualification of
the bidder with the lowest bids and the award of the Contract to the bidder
with the highest bid. This, in turn, caused GSIS to be obligated to pay an
additional P4,042,853.70 for the same project, to the damage and prejudice
of the Government. According to the prosecution, accused's "persistent
reliance" 11 on the applicability of P.D. No. 1594, despite the enactment of
R.A. No. 9184, is tantamount to gross inexcusable negligence, if not evident
bad faith. The defense, on the other hand, maintained that the application of
a lower limit was not prohibited under P.D. No. 1594, which was still in effect
during the inception of the whole bidding process.
After trial, the Sandiganbayan, on 29 November 2016, issued its
Decision acquitting accused of the offense charged. 12 The dispositive
portion of this Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, this Court finds
that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
guilt of accused Jesusa Ruby A. Teruel, Catherine Portia P. Corteza,
Adelaida J. Jamontoc, Jose Ma. C. Capalla, and Lita L. Sonalan, and
consequently ACQUITS them of the offense under Section 3,
paragraph (e) of R.A. No. 3019.
There being no basis for a finding of civil liability, none is
adjudged against the accused. Let the bond posted for the provisional
liberty of accused Teruel, Corteza, Jamantoc, Capalla, and Sonalan, be
returned to them, subject to the usual accounting and auditing
procedures of the Court. The Hold Departure Order issued against
them is likewise lifted.
The case against accused Rudy C. Tesoro, considering that he
remains at large, is in the meantime sent to the archive in order that
the case may not appear in the records as pending for [an] indefinite
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 period of time. This is without prejudice on the part of the
Ombudsman to prosecute him as soon as the accused is
apprehended.
SO ORDERED. 13

The Sandiganbayan found, based on the evidence presented, that the

first Invitation to Pre-Qualify and Bid was issued on 25 January 2003, or
before R.A. No. 9184 took effect on 26 January 2003. 14 Thus, it held that
P.D. No. 1594 governed the subject bidding, pursuant to this Court's ruling in
Abaya v. Ebdane, 15 which ruled that the determining factor of the applicable
law depends on the date of date of issuance of the advertisement or
invitation to bid.
The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration. 16 This was denied
by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution 17 dated 18 April 2017, the dispositive
portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the prosecution's Motion for
Reconsideration dated December 16, 2016 for (1) being violative of
the principle against double jeopardy; and (2) lack of merit and/or for
being pro forma. 18
Hence, this Petition alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan when it
issued the assailed Decision and Resolution.
Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues for resolution of the Court: 1)
whether or not the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily and capriciously refused to
perform its duty of weighing all the evidence on record, and with bias and
prejudice, merely relied on the allegations of the defense; and 2) whether or
not the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily exercised its judicial power when it
acquitted respondents despite prosecution having proved, beyond
reasonable doubt, evident bad faith and unwarranted benefit. 19
Ruling of the Court
We DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.
First. The general rule is that a judgment of acquittal rendered after
trial on the merits shall be immediately final and unappealable because
further prosecution will place the accused in double jeopardy. A judgment of
acquittal rendered by the Sandiganbayan may, however, be assailed without
violating the proscription against double jeopardy via a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This can only be made on narrow
grounds established in jurisprudence, that is, on the basis of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or on the ground of
denial of due process. Both imply an invalid or otherwise void judgment
which, if established, causes a judgment of acquittal to be considered void
and thereby legally inexistent and will not have the effect of an acquittal. 20
I n People v. Sandiganbayan and Juan Roberto Abling (Abling), 21 we
held:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 x x x Unlike in an appeal, this remedy does not involve a review of
facts and law on the merits, an examination of evidence and a
determination of its probative value, or an inquiry on the correctness
of the evaluation of the evidence. Judicial review in certiorari
proceedings shall be confined to the question of whether the
judgment for acquittal is per se void on jurisdictional grounds. The
court will look into the decision's validity — if it was rendered
by a court without jurisdiction or if the court acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
— not on its legal correctness. The abuse of discretion must be so
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or
virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by law, or to act in
contemplation of law or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. More
specifically, to prove that an acquittal is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion, the petitioner must show that the
prosecution's right to due process was violated or that the
trial conducted was a sham. 22
As in Abling, this Court finds that petitioner failed to meet the criteria
required in availing the exceptional legal remedy of certiorari. There is
nothing in the Petition which avers that petitioner's right to due process was
violated or that the trial before the court a quo was a sham. Moreover, the
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the crime charged and the prosecution
had its day in court and adduced its evidence. There was no allegation of
collusion between the prosecutor and respondents. The anti-graft court
analyzed the evidence of the parties and made its findings and conclusions
based therein. 23
Moreover, Our review of the records and pleadings shows that
petitioner's arguments are, at their core, challenges to the Sandiganbayan's
appreciation of evidence. Errors of judgment, however, are not the province
of certiorari proceedings; the extraordinary writ of certiorari may only correct
errors of jurisdiction. 24
Petitioner's claim of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Sandiganbayan in acquitting Teruel is all the more negated when one
considers the fact that this Court would itself arrive at the same conclusion
in a related case. In G.R. No. 222257, which was decided on 09 August 2019,
this Court was asked to resolve the issue of whether the Commission on
Audit (COA) was correct in issuing a Notice of Disallowance against
disbursements made by respondents arising from the same procurement
subject of this case. As the basis for the disallowance was the purported
irregularity in the procurement process, the Court in G.R. No. 222257
necessarily had to settle the issue of which between P.D. No. 1594 or R.A.
No. 9184 applied to the subject procurement. Thus:
Government procurement and construction contracts have always
been a challenging enterprise. They are prone to corruption, leaving
taxpayers at the losing end. Thus, the general policy is to conduct
public bidding for government procurements and construction
contracts. Designed to protect the public interest by giving the best
possible advantages, bidders compete to offer the best possible
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 reduced price, curtailing corruption in the process. In the end, the
open competition precludes suspicion of favouritism and anomalies in
the execution of public contracts.
To ensure the public bidding principles of transparency,
competitiveness, simplicity and accountability are implemented, the
government agency must comply with specific procedural
requirements. Among these is to level the field for all interested
bidders by informing them of the necessary details in the invitation to
bid and allowing bidders ample time to prepare their offers. The
government must advertise the invitation to bid in a
prescribed manner and the time when the advertisement was
posted would serve as the reckoning point as to which law
shall apply to the procurement process.
The two laws subject of the controversy are P.D. No. 1594 and R.A.
No. 9184. P.D. No. 1594 took effect on June 11, 1978, while R.A. No.
9184 was made into law on January 26, 2003. Clearly, since the
invitation to bid was first posted in January 23, 2003, during
the effectivity of P.D. No. 1594, such law unequivocally
applies.
Assuming arguendo that the January 23, 2003 advertisement
is void, and the invitations to bid were published on February
19 and 24, and March 3, 2003, x x x law and jurisprudence
still dictate the application of P.D. No. 1594.
xxx xxx xxx
It is a well-settled tenet that a law or regulation has no retroactive
application, unless it expressly provides for retroactivity. Again, and
as extensively discussed above, the Court, to the point of being
redundant, reiterates that since R.A. No. 9184 was put into law
subsequent to the posting of the invitation to bid, the aforesaid law
cannot be applied retroactively.
xxx xxx xxx
A scrutiny of the provisions of the IRR of R.A. No. 9184 spells absolute
certainty of the applications of P.D. No. 1594.
The Transitory Clause carved in Sec. 11.1 of the IRR categorically
states that the reckoning period shall be the date when the
advertisement or invitation to bid was issued. Section 77.1 of the IRR
reads:
Section 77. Transitory Clause. —
77.1. In all procurement activities, if the
advertisement or invitation for bids was issued prior to
the effectivity of the Act, the provisions of E.O. 40 and its
IRR, P.D. No. 1594 and its IRR, R.A. [No.] 7160 and its IRR,
or other applicable laws, as the case may be, shall
govern.
While the succeeding invitations to bid were posted at the
time R.A. No. 9184 was already in effect, the reckoning point
remains the date of the first issuance of the bid: January 23,
2003.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 As if to set the rule in stone, the mandate to apply P.D. No. 1594 on
advertisements or invitations to bid that were issued during the
effectivity of R.A. No. 9184, but before the issuance of the IRR, is
scribed in the succeeding proviso, which reads:
77.2. In cases where the advertisements or invitations
for bids were issued before the effectivity of this IRR,
Procuring Entities may continue adopting the
procurement procedures, rules, and regulations provided
in the [Revised] IRR [of 2009] or other applicable laws, as
the case may be.
The factual circumstances square within the ambit of Sec. 77.2 of the
IRR. In the case at bar, the first invitation to bid was posted prior to
the effectivity of R.A. No. 9184 and the succeeding invitations were
published during the effectivity of R.A. No. 9184, but before the
issuance of the IRR. Pursuant to Sec. 77.2 of the IRR, therefore, the
procuring entity has the option whether to apply P.D. No. 1594, the
law in effect during the publication of the bid or the subsequent IRR.
Otherwise stated, the BAC has the option whether to continue
adopting the rules of P.D. No. 1594 or the procedure laid down in R.A.
No. 9184. In this case, it is clear that the BAC chose to adopt
the regulations in P.D. No. 1594.
As proof of its decision in electing to apply P.D. No. 1594, the BAC
reiterated, in not one but in two bid bulletins, dated April 29, 2003
and September 4, 2003, respectively, and in a pre-bid conference
bulletin, dated April 3, 2003, the undisputable application of the
aforesaid law. While the Court cannot turn a blind eye to the third bid
bulletin's statement of applying R.A. No. 9184, the Court deems that
the same was just a matter of oversight on the part of the BAC; for
what is conclusive is the decision of the BAC during the pre-
procurement conference, which in this case, is P.D. No. 1594. Any
change from then on was inconsequential. To change the governing
law days before the opening of the bid would unduly delay the
bidding and would require the BAC to recommence the whole process
and start all over again.
xxx xxx xxx
Finally, given that P.D. No. 1594 applies, the rule on
disclosure of relations and prohibition on imposing a
minimum allowable bid equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the
AAE enforced in R.A. No. 9184 are not applicable. Hence,
[Teruel] cannot be faulted for non-compliance thereof, and
the subsequent failure to follow the aforesaid rules
prescribed in R.A. No. 9184 did not result in any irregularity
that would warrant a disallowance of the mobilization fee. 25
[Emphases supplied.]
The Court, in G.R. No. 222257, like the Sandiganbayan, reached the
exact same conclusion, that is, P.D. No. 1594, and not R.A. No. 9184,
was the applicable law. 26 The Sandiganbayan thus cannot be faulted for
gravely abusing its discretion any more than this Court could.
In fact, and following this Court's pronouncement in the recent case of
People v. Camenforte , 27 the Court's finding in G.R. No. 222257 is a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 determination of a "prejudicial question" which necessarily forecloses the
prosecution of the pending criminal cases inasmuch as the criminal charge
against Teruel for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 rests entirely on
R.A. No. 9184 being the law governing the subject procurement:
xxx xxx xxx
In sum, the prejudicial factual finding of genuineness of the Sps.
Granda's signatures on the questioned Deeds of Sale in Civil Case No.
2001-09-135 must operate to bar the prosecution of the respondents
for the falsification of the same signatures on the same questioned
Deeds of Sale. This is the heart of the doctrine of a prejudicial
question, without the appreciation of which the application of said
doctrine may never come to be.
Finally, petitioner's submission that he must be allowed to present
new evidence in order to establish the allegation of forgery which was
already conclusively found as without basis in Civil Case No. 2001-09-
135 is to completely render nugatory the very premise of a prejudicial
question, for one, and the value of finality of judgments, for another.
Chiefly, the doctrine of a prejudicial question serves the following
purposes: (i) to avoid multiplicity of suits; (ii) avoid unnecessary
litigation; (iii) avoid conflicting decisions; (iv) safeguard the rights of
the accused; and (v) unclog the courts' dockets. Therefore, if
petitioner is allowed to effectively relitigate a point of prejudicial fact
already tried and found by another court in a civil case, and which
has, in this case, already attained finality, then the above purposes of
the doctrine of a prejudicial question will be wholly defeated. 28
Further, In Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, 29 We explained:
Although the instant case involves a criminal charge whereas
Constantino involved an administrative charge, still the findings in the
latter case are binding herein because the same set of facts are the
subject of both cases. What is decisive is that the issues already
litigated in a final and executory judgment preclude — by the
principle of bar by prior judgment, an aspect of the doctrine
o f res judicata , and even under the doctrine of "law of the
case," — the re-litigation of the same issue in another action.
It is well established that when a right or fact has been
judicially tried and determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be
conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them.
The dictum therein laid down became the law of the case and what
was once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or
decision continues to be binding between the same parties as long as
the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the
facts of the case before the court. Hence, the binding effect and
enforceability of that dictum can no longer be resurrected anew since
such issue had already been resolved and finally laid to rest, if not by
the principle of res judicata, at least by conclusiveness of judgment.
It may be true that the basis of administrative liability differs
from criminal liability as the purpose of administrative proceedings on
the one hand is mainly to protect the public service, based on the
time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust. On the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 other hand, the purpose of the criminal prosecution is the punishment
of crime. However, the dismissal by the Court of the administrative
case against Constantino based on the same subject matter and after
examining the same crucial evidence operates to dismiss the criminal
case because of the precise finding that the act from which liability is
anchored does not exist.
Indeed, absolution from an administrative case does not necessarily
bar a criminal case from proceeding and vice versa. While proceedings on
the disallowance before the COA are distinct and separate from criminal
cases filed before the Sandiganbayan, 30 if, as in this case, the criminal case
will be prosecuted based on the same facts and evidence as that in the
administrative case, and the court trying the latter already squarely ruled on
the absence of facts and/or circumstances sufficient to negate the basis of
the criminal indictment, then to still burden the accused to present
controverting evidence will be a futile and useless exercise. 31
The criminal charge against Teruel for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A.
No. 3019 rests entirely on R.A. No. 9184 being the law governing the subject
procurement. The Court in G.R. No. 222257 has squarely ruled that P.D. No.
1594, and not R.A. No. 9184, is the applicable. Consequently, we find that
the prosecution's basis for Teruel's criminal indictment (conditioned as it is
on the applicability of R.A. No. 9184) has been sufficiently negated.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby
DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 29 November 2016 and
Resolution dated 18 April 2017 rendered by the Sandiganbayan in SB-08-
CRM-0001 are AFFIRMED.
It appearing that the copies of the Resolutions dated July 15, 2020 and
October 14, 2020 sent to Atty. Gabriel Francisco A. Ramirez, Jr., counsel for
respondents Cortez and Capalla, at No. 39-O Pugad Lawin Drive, Brgy. Bahay
Toro, Project 8, 1116 Quezon City, were both returned to this Court on
January 13, 2021 unserved with postal notation "RTS-unknown addressee"
and on February 24, 2021 unserved with postal notation: "RTS-Unknown
addressee," respectively, the Court resolves to CONSIDER said copies of
resolutions as SERVED.
SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 8-45.
2. Id. at 49-70; penned by Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires (now Ombudsman
and a former member of this Court) with Presiding Justice Amparo M.
Cabotaje-Tang and Associate Justice Alex L. Quiroz, concurring.
3. Id. at 73-80; penned by Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, with
Associate Justices Sarah Jane T. Fernandez and Alex L. Quiroz, concurring.
4. 06 August 2019 (Resolution).
5. G.R. No. 222257, 06 August 2019, Most of these were also subject of stipulations
made by the parties before the Sandiganbayan (Rollo , pp. 94-126).
6. Rollo , p. 53.
7. Id. at 53-54.
8. Id. at 54.

9. Who remains at large.

10. Rollo , p. 54.
11. Id. at 66.

12. Id. at 49-70.

13. Id. at 69.

14. Id. at 63.

15. 544 Phil. 645 (2007), G.R. No. 167919, 14 February 2007 [Per J. Callejo, Sr.].

16. Rollo , pp. 81-91.

17. Id. at 73-80.

18. Id. at 80.

19. Id. at 23.

20. People v. Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division], 681 Phil. 90 (2012), G.R. No.
153304-05, 07 February 2012 [Per J. Brion].

21. 818 Phil. 843 (2017), G.R. No. 198119, 27 September 2017 [Per J. Leonardo-De
Castro].
22. Abling, supra.

23. See People v. Sandiganbayan and Belac (Belac), 524 Phil. 496 (2006), G.R. No.
168188-89, 16 June 2006 [Per J. Callejo].

24. Abling, supra and Belac, supra.

25. Teruel v. Commission on Audit , G.R. No. 222257, [Resolution], 06 August 2019.
Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 26. This ruling became final on 19 November 2019, when the Court denied with
finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG).

27. G.R. No. 220916, 14 June 2021 [Per J. Caguioa]. *note approved for release;
awaiting promulgation.

28. People v. Camenforte, supra .

29. 559 Phil. 622 (2007), G.R. Nos. 140656 & 154482, 13 September 2007 [Per J.
Tinga]. Emphasis supplied.

30. Cambe v. Office of the Ombudsman, 802 Phil. 190 (2016), G.R. Nos. 212014-
15, 212427-28, 212694-95, 212794-95, 213477-78, 213532-33, 213536-37 &
218744-59, 06 December 2016 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe] citing Reyna v.
Commission on Audit, 657 Phil. 209 (2011), G.R. No. 167219, 08 February
2011 [Per J. Peralta].

31. People v. Sandiganbayan and Basco , 637 Phil. 147 (2010), G.R. No. 164577, 05
July 2010 [Per J. Mendoza]. See also Pahkiat v. Office of the Ombudsman-
Mindanao, G.R. No. 223972, 03 November 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com