James Matthew C.

Zara
Criminal Procedure / 2B-JD5
Judge Ramon Makasiar

SALUDAGA vs SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 189431 & 191120
April 7, 2010

FACTS:
Saludaga and Genio entered into a Pakyaw Contract for the construction of Barangay Day Care
Centers without conducting a competitive public bidding as required by law, which caused damage and
prejudice to the government. An information was filed for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 by causing
undue injury to the Government. The information was quashed for failure to prove the actual damage,
hence a new information was filed, now for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 by giving unwarranted
benefit to a private person. The accused moved for a new preliminary investigation to be conducted on the
ground that there is substitution and/or substantial amendment of the first information.

ISSUE:
Is there substitution and/or substantial amendment of the information that would warrant an new
preliminary investigation?

RULING:
No, there is no substitution and/or substantial amendment.

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer
and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or
judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with
the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

That there are two (2) different modes of committing the offense: either by causing undue injury or
by giving private person unwarranted benefit. That accused may be charged under either mode or under
both. Hence a new preliminary investigation is unnecessary.

DOCTRINE:

The Court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds:
(a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantive rights of the accused have
been committed during the trial.
(b) That new and material evidence has been discovered and produced at the trial and which if
introduced and admitted would probably change the judgement.