01. ISABELO A. BRAZA, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (1ST DIVISION),

respondent. [G.R. No. 195032. February 20, 2013.]

FACTS:
 PH was assigned to be the host for the 12th ASEAN Leaders Summit.
 In preparation for this event DPWH entered into contracts with FABMIK Construction
Company to rehabilitate the streetlights of Mandaue-Mactan Bridge 1 with an estimated
cost of 83,950,000.
 On its own pocket and credit facilities, FABMIK paid first all the expenses.
 After the ASEAN summit, a letter complaint was filed before the Public Assistance and
Corruption Prevention Office, Ombudsman Visayas
o Overpriced Street Lights
 Braza, the President of FABMIK (Contractor) was impleaded as one of the accused.
 Ombudsman ordered the Department of Budget and Management and DPWH to cease
and desist from releasing or disbursing funds for the streetlights.

PROCEDURE:
 A preliminary investigation was made and probable cause was found to indict the
respondents for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
o The contracts were manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the Government
o Estimates and Customs Prices vary
 OMB-Visayas filed several informations before the sandiganbayan.
o Braza acted in conspiracy with the public officials and employees in the
commission of the crime charged.
 Braza was arraigned as a precondition to his authorization to travel abroad, and
subsequently entered a plea of not guilty. (Conditional arraignment)
 Braza filed a motion for reinvestigation on the ff grounds:
o Import documents relied were spurious
o It constituted new evidence and would overturn the finding of probable cause
o Finding of overpricing was bereft of factual and prevailing market prices of the
lampposts.
 OMB-Visayas upheld the finding of probable cause but modified the charge from
violation of Sec. 3 of RA 3019 to Sec. 3(e) of the same law.
 Braza filed for the dismissal of the case invoking Double Jeopardy and right to speedy
trial
 Sandiganbayan denied and issued a resolution stating that he would not be placed in
double jeopardy should he be arraigned anew under the second information because his
previous arraignment was conditional. Even if he was regularly arraigned DJ still won’t
set in because the second information charged an offense different from, and which did
not include or was necessarily included in, the original offense charged.
 Braza filed an MR  Denied
 Braza filed a petition for certiorari ascribing grave abuse of discretion of Sandiganbayan
for its resolutions.
ISSUE/S: WON Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion

RULING:
1. In the issue of Double Jeopardy  NO

 As a precondition to authorize his travel, he was subjected to an arraignment where

he pleaded not guilty.
 He was well informed in front of his counsel that he willingly submit himself to the
condition specified therein:
o If the present information will be amended as a result of the pending incidents
herein, he cannot invoke his right against double jeopardy and he shall submit
himself to arraignment anew under such amended information.
 The relinquishment of his right to invoke double jeopardy had been convincingly laid
out. Such waiver was clear, categorical and intelligent.
 Having given his conformity and accepted the conditional arraignment and its legal
consequences, Braza is now estopped from assailing its conditional nature just to
conveniently avoid being arraigned and prosecuted of the new charge under the 2 nd
information.
 The court can’t allow Braza to revoke the conditions on the mere pretext that he
affirmed his conditional arraignment through a pleading denominated as
manifestation filed before the Sandiganbayan.

2. In the issue of right to speedy trial  NO

 Concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible. Several factors are taken on each
case such as:
o Length of delay
o Reasons for delay
o Assertion or failure to assert such right
o Prejudice caused by delay
 There was no showing that there were unreasonable delays in the proceedings or that
the case was kept in idle slumber

FALLO: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DENIED. The Sandiganbayan is hereby
DIRECTED to dispose of Case No. SB-08-CRM-0275 with reasonable Dispatch.
SO ORDERED.